Young Hee Park v. One Call Pizza, Inc. et al
| Young Hee Park |
| Luciano Marin Rabanales, Sr., Does 1-10 inclusive, One Call Pizza, Inc., John Charles Call, Van Ness Property, LLC, Prima Pizza, Inc and Brent Hamill |
| 2:2019cv07128 |
| August 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Gail J Standish |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendants John Charles Call, One Call Pizza, Inc., Luciano Marin Rabanales, Sr., Van Ness Property, LLC. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. (esa) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Young Hee Park, (Kim, Jong) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Young Hee Park. (Kim, Jong) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Young Hee Park. (Kim, Jong) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24270822 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Young Hee Park. (Attorney Jong Yun Kim added to party Young Hee Park(pty:pla))(Kim, Jong) |
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.
