Hector Clarence Anderson v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC et al
| Hector Clarence Anderson |
| Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Keefe Commissary Network, LLC and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC doing business as Access Securepak |
| 2:2019cv04892 |
| June 5, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald SW Lew |
| Frederick F Mumm |
| Virginia A Phillips |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips ORDERING Letter from Plaintiff submitted by Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson received on 7/15/19 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk. (bm)
|
| Filing 11 Letter from Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson (bm) |
| Filing 10 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 19-55771 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, #8 as to Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson. (bm) |
| Filing 9 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson, re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, #8 . (mat) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson. Appeal of Order on Request for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fees (CV60P), #7 Filed On: 6/12/19; Entered On: 6/14/19; Filing fee $ 505 BILLED. (mat) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Denying #3 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fee, and this case is hereby DISMISSED immediately: IT WAS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees be DENIED. Reason: Frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Failure to provide certified copy of trust fund statement for the last six (6) months. District Court lacks jurisdiction. MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (bm)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 19-03. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to Judge Virginia A. Phillips for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:19-cv-04892 VAP(FFMx). (rn)
|
| Re APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support #3 . Proposed Order forwarded to the District Judge for approval.(jm) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson. (jtil) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Court Order to Provide Certified Statement filed by Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson. (jtil) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand and Appointment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson against Defendants Keefe Commissary Network, LLC and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. Case assigned to Judge Ronald S.W. Lew for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. (jtil) |
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
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.
