Brian Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. et al
| Brian Whitaker |
| Does 1-10 and Tesla Motors, Inc. |
| 2:2019cv06605 |
| July 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F Eick |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction #13 filed by Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.. (Gaus, Arthur) |
| Filing 19 OPPOSITION in opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction #13 filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attorney Chris Carson added to party Brian Whitaker(pty:pla))(Carson, Chris) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Change of address by Russell C Handy attorney for Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. Changing attorneys address to 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92111. Filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 17 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc., identifying Tesla Motors, Inc.. (Gaus, Arthur) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion to Dismiss #13 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Notice of Interested Parties and/or no copies. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. (iv) |
| Filing 15 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Cathy L Arias counsel for Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.. Adding Cathy L. Arias as counsel of record for Defendant TESLA, INC. (erroneously sued herein as Tesla Motors, Inc.) for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant TESLA, INC. (erroneously sued herein as Tesla Motors, Inc.). (Attorney Cathy L Arias added to party Tesla Motors, Inc.(pty:dft))(Arias, Cathy) |
| Filing 14 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction #13 filed by Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.. (Gaus, Arthur) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 10/7/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Proposed Order) (Attorney Arthur Slezak Gaus added to party Tesla Motors, Inc.(pty:dft)) (Gaus, Arthur) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitakerto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2)(Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, upon Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. served on 8/6/2019, answer due 8/27/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: C T Corporation System - Gabriella Sanchez-intake specialist in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker, re Notice to Parties ADA Disability Access Litigation (ADR-20),, #8 served on 08/09/2019. (Carson, Chris) |
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The Response shall be filed on or before August 23, 2019. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (iv)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE to Parties Re (ADR-20) Disability Access Litigation/Application for Stay and Early Mediation: PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED to serve the ADA Packet on Defendant(s) at the same time the Summons and Complaint are served, if possible. If, upon receipt of this Notice to Parties, Plaintiff has already served Defendants, Plaintiff must serve the ADA Packet no later than fourteen (14) days after this Notice to Parties is filed by the Court. Within three (3) days of serving Defendant(s), Plaintiff must file with the Court a proof of service indicating that the ADA Packet was served on Defendant(s). *See Notice for further details.* (smom) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24176075 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Brian Whitaker(pty:pla))(Handy, Russell) |
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.
