Brian Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Brian Whitaker
Defendant: Does 1-10 and Starbucks Corporation
Case Number: 2:2019cv06607
Filed: July 30, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Michael W Fitzgerald
Referring Judge: Jean P Rosenbluth
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 27, 2019 Filing 15 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Stein, Ashley)
September 25, 2019 Filing 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. Motion set for hearing on 11/18/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration of Ashley Stein, #3 Request for Judicial Notice, #4 Proposed Order) (Stein, Ashley)
September 17, 2019 Filing 13 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)
August 23, 2019 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)
August 22, 2019 Filing 11 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation.(Attorney Ashley D Stein added to party Starbucks Corporation(pty:dft))(Stein, Ashley)
August 18, 2019 Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, upon Defendant Starbucks Corporation served on 8/5/2019, answer due 8/26/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY(Becky De George-Agent for service) in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell)
August 9, 2019 Opinion or Order 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)
August 5, 2019 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)
July 31, 2019 Filing 7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant Starbucks Corporation. (esa)
July 31, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa)
July 31, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (esa)
July 30, 2019 Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell)
July 30, 2019 Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, (Handy, Russell)
July 30, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell)
July 30, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24176141 - 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 this case: Brian Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does 1-10
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: Starbucks Corporation
Represented By: Ashley D Stein
Represented By: Robert W Conti
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 ]
Plaintiff: Brian Whitaker
Represented By: Dennis Jay Price, II
Represented By: Phyl Grace
Represented By: Raymond George Ballister, Jr
Represented By: Russell C Handy
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.


Why Is My Information Online?