Dwain Lammey v. G3H Investments LLC et al
| Dwain Lammey |
| Does 1-10, Lisa Beauty Salon and Spa, Inc. and G3H Investments LLC |
| 2:2019cv07758 |
| September 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dean D Pregerson |
| Suzanne H Segal |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties #16 , finds that good cause exists for extending the time for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file their response no later than November 20, 2019. (lc)
|
| Filing 17 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Dwain Lammey, re Notice to Parties ADA Disability Access Litigation (ADR-20) #13 served on 10/10/2019. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 16 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, filed by Defendant G3H Investments LLC.(Attorney Sue Y Park added to party G3H Investments LLC(pty:dft))(Park, Sue) |
|
Filing 15
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel to the Courts Order to Show Cause. The Court denies Plaintiffs request for a stay or for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim. The Court therefore dismisses that claim without prejudice. (lc)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Dwain Lammeyto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #11 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2)(Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 13 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION. The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. all proposed sealed documents must be submitted via e-mail to the Judges Chambers email address, EXCLUDING those submitted by pro se parties and IN CAMERA filings, which shall continue to comply with Local Rule 79-5.1. Please refer to the Judges procedures and schedules for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. (lc)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than October 18, 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 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (lc)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 19-03. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge Otis D. Wright, II for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:19-cv-07758 ODW (SSx). (esa)
|
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dwain Lammey, upon Defendant Lisa Beauty Salon and Spa, Inc. served on 9/28/2019, answer due 10/21/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Eric Doe - Person in charge in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dwain Lammey, upon Defendant G3H Investments LLC served on 9/28/2019, answer due 10/21/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Eric Doe in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendants G3H Investments LLC, Lisa Beauty Salon and Spa, Inc. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson and Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. (esa) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Dwain Lammey. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Dwain Lammey, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Dwain Lammey. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24398014 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Dwain Lammey. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Dwain Lammey(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.
