Karen Hale v. United States Postal Service et al
| Karen Hale |
| DOES 1-10 and United States Postal Service |
| 2:2019cv08942 |
| October 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| Rozella A Oliver |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Karen Hale, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Genoveva Ortega. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to - signature illegible. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to - signature illegible. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Karen Hale, upon Defendant United States Postal Service served on 10/31/2019, answer due 12/30/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Genoveva Ortega. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to - signature illegible. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to - signature illegible. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 11 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Karen Hale amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale(Manganiello, Justin) |
Filing 10
STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. (mrgo)
|
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale, identifying N/A. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant United States Postal Service. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale. (Manganiello, Justin) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24621406 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Karen Hale. (Attorney Justin C Manganiello added to party Karen Hale(pty:pla))(Manganiello, Justin) |
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.
