Lola Lovett v. Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation
Plaintiff: Lola Lovett
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation, Does 1 to 50, inclusive and Starbucks Corporation
Case Number: 2:2019cv07159
Filed: August 16, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F Eick
Referring Judge: Dale S Fischer
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28:1441
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are ordered to appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for 12/16/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (rfi)
August 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (rfi)
August 19, 2019 Filing 7 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,, #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Notice of Related Case(s) #3 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #4 served on August 19, 2019. (Lavi, Rachael)
August 19, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh)
August 19, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (lh)
August 16, 2019 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint, filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 8/14/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL, DOCUMENT 1-4)(lh)
August 16, 2019 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 TO 50, Starbucks Corporation. Filed by Plaintiff Lola Lovett. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 5/28/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL, DOCUMENT 1-3 #1 ) (lh)
August 16, 2019 Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation, identifying Plaintiff Lola Lovett; Defendant Starbucks Corporation (no corporate parent). (Lavi, Rachael)
August 16, 2019 Filing 3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation. Related Case(s): None (Lavi, Rachael)
August 16, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation. (Lavi, Rachael)
August 16, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 19STCV18445 Receipt No: 0973-24278148 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Julie Broxson In Support Of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Notice of Removal of Action, #2 Declaration of Rachel S. Lavi In Support Of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Notice of Removal of Action, #3 Exhibit A (Complaint) to Declaration of Rachel S. Lavi In Support Of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Notice of Removal of Action, #4 Exhibit B (Answer to Complaint) to Declaration of Rachel S. Lavi In Support Of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Notice of Removal of Action, #5 Exhibit C (Notice of Case Assignment/Notice of CMC) to Declaration of Rachel S. Lavi In Support Of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Notice of Removal of Action) (Attorney Rachael Sarah Lavi added to party Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation(pty:dft))(Lavi, Rachael)

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: Lola Lovett v. Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lola Lovett
Represented By: Craig L Chisvin
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, a Washington Corporation
Represented By: Rachael Sarah Lavi
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: Does 1 to 50, inclusive
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: Judy M Iriye
Represented By: Rachael Sarah Lavi
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?