Brian Whitaker v. YLBS, LLC et al
| Brian Whitaker |
| Does 1-10 and YLBS, LLC |
| 2:2019cv09930 |
| November 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Charles F Eick |
| 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 January 17, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: Granting #11 APPLICATION to Stay Case re Early Mediation ADA Disability Access Litigation as to All Defendants. The ADR proceeding is to be completed no later than 4/16/2020. (iv)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICION OVER PLAINTIFF'S 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 13 Opposition re: APPLICATION to Stay Case and Early Mediation re ADA Disability Access Litigation, #11 filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attachments: #1 Proof of service)(Miller, Bryan) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Bryan Barnet Miller on behalf of Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (Attachments: #1 Proof of service)(Attorney Bryan Barnet Miller added to party Brian Whitaker(pty:pla))(Miller, Bryan) |
| Filing 11 APPLICATION to Stay Case and Early Mediation re ADA Disability Access Litigation, filed by Defendant YLBS, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (iv) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, upon Defendant YLBS, LLC served on 12/22/2019, answer due 1/13/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Afshan Mohammad - Co-occupant in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitakerto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #8 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Proof of service)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 8
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S UNRUH ACT CLAIM by 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 December 20, 2019. (iv)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant YLBS, LLC. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24814085 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Brian Whitaker(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.
