MONIQUE BELL v. AMMEEN HADDAD et al
MONIQUE BELL |
DOES 1 through 10, AMMEEN HADDAD, A & B PROPERTY INVESTMENTS and AMMEEN HADDAD doing business as SILVERLAKE MOBIL |
2:2019cv09952 |
November 20, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Alexander F MacKinnon |
Otis D Wright |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 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, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act and other state law claims. The Court therefore dismisses that claim without prejudice. (lc) |
Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff MONIQUE BELLto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #10 re Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
Filing 10 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 and other state law claims asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than December 13, 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 Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claimpursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (lc) |
Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants A & B PROPERTY INVESTMENTS and AMMEEN HADDAD. (jtil) |
Filing 8 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
Filing 7 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.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 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (jtil) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff MONIQUE BELL, (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff MONIQUE BELL. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff MONIQUE BELL. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24820188 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff MONIQUE BELL. (Attorney Jason J Kim added to party MONIQUE BELL(pty:pla))(Kim, Jason) |
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.