Dennis Lindog v. Michael Richard Pompeo
| Dennis Lindog |
| MICHAEL RICHARD POMPEO |
| 2:2019cv04722 |
| May 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John E McDermott |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog. (Sturman, David) |
| Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog, upon Defendant Michael Richard Pompeo served on 6/17/2019, answer due 8/16/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Genoveva Ortega. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to A. Owens. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to A. Blackshear. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Proof of Service on Defendant, #2 Supplement Proof of Service on Attorney General)(Sturman, David) |
| Filing 7 REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. Each party must file form CV-11C within the consent deadlines pursuant to L.R. 73-2. Additionally, the parties are directed to L.R. 73-2.2 Proof of Service. In any case in which only a magistrate judge is initially assigned, plaintiff must file a proof of service within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint as to each defendant. (san) |
| Filing 6 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Michael Richard Pompeo. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (jtil) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog. (Sturman, David) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog, (Sturman, David) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog. (Sturman, David) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-23830451 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Dennis Lindog. (Attorney David M Sturman added to party Dennis Lindog(pty:pla))(Sturman, David) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Dennis Lindog v. Michael Richard Pompeo | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Dennis Lindog | |
| Represented By: | David M Sturman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: MICHAEL RICHARD POMPEO | |
| Represented By: | OIL-DCS Trial Attorney |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
