Gary Scherer v. Bristol-Warner Investors LLC et al
| Gary Scherer |
| Does 1-10, Petsmart, Inc. and Bristol-Warner Investors LLC |
| 2:2019cv07326 |
| August 23, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| 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 October 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gary Scherer, upon Defendant Bristol-Warner Investors LLC served on 9/3/2019, answer due 9/24/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY(Becky De George-Service for Agent) in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 12
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. This claim is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff to assert it in state court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim. (iv)
|
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plantiff Gary Scherer. upon Petsmart, Inc. waiver sent by Plaintiff on 8/29/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. Waiver of Service signed by Kathy H. Gao. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Gary Schererto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Proof of Service)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIMby Judge Cormac J. Carney: The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by September 9, 2019. (See minutes for further details) (yl)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 19-03. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Christina A. Snyder to Judge Cormac J. Carney for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:19-cv-07326 CJC(KSx). (rn)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Bristol-Warner Investors LLC, Petsmart, Inc. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Gary Scherer. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Gary Scherer, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Gary Scherer. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24313128 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Gary Scherer. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Gary Scherer(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.
