Ryan Regnell et al v. Nathan Mendes et al
| Ryan Regnell and Javier Cortazar |
| Mike O'Dowd, Nathan Mendes, MZ Tactical and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 2:2019cv10010 |
| November 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Otis D Wright |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 16, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Regnell and Javier Cortazar, on the one hand; and Defendants Nathan Mendes and the United States of America on the other hand #12 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Parties Stipulation of Dismissal shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE; 2. Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as Moot #11 . All other dates and deadlines are vacated.3. Each party shall bear its own attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and4. The Defendant Mike ODowd remains the sole Defendant in this action. (lc)
|
| Filing 12 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Thayer, Damon) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the United States filed by Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Motion set for hearing on 1/6/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge Otis D. Wright II. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order, #3 POS) (Attorney Damon A Thayer added to party UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(pty:dft)) (Thayer, Damon) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other), #9 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: MOTION: Judgment on the Pleadings (follow system prompts to select date, time and Judge). Other error(s) with document(s): Due to wrong event, No Motion Nor Motion hearing was Set on Judge's Motion calendar... Note: To assist in a search for correct events, please use the "SEARCH" option for a "key word" to narrow the selection process. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Karrisa Nielsen, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Proof of Service)(Thayer, Damon) |
|
Filing 8
SELF-REPRESENTATION ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, (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 onthe 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
ORDER that the Scheduling Conference is set for 3/23/20 1:30 PM ; compliance with FRCP 16, and 26(f) and filing of joint report; Counsel for plaintiff shall immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action by Judge Otis D Wright, II (lc)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION filed by Defendant Nathan Mendes. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Proof of Service)(Thayer, Damon) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Regnell, Javier Cortazar pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to MZ Tactical with prejudice. Filed in State Court on 2/26/18 Submitted with attachment 1 to notice of removal #1 (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) filed by Defendant Nathan Mendes. Filed in State Court on 6/12/19 Submitted with attachment 1 to notice of removal #1 (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Nathan Mendes, Mike O'Dowd, filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Regnell, Javier Cortazar. Filed in State Court on 4/9/2019 Submitted with attachment 1 to notice of removal #1 (car) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Nathan Mendes. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Thayer, Damon) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo, case number 19CV-0208 No Fee Required - US Government, filed by Defendant Nathan Mendes. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Proof of Service) (Attorney Damon A Thayer added to party Nathan Mendes(pty:dft))(Thayer, Damon) |
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.
