Marquez v. Plamex Investment, LLC et al
Luis Marquez |
DOES 1-10, Comex Food Service, Inc. and Plamex Investment, LLC |
2:2019cv10881 |
December 26, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Cormac J Carney |
Alexander F MacKinnon |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
Defendant |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 NOTICE OF INTENT upon filing of the complaint by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Scheduling order to be issued on March 19, 2020. (gga) |
Filing 14 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Comex Food Service, Inc., Plamex Investment, LLC, identifying Luis Marquez, Plamex Investment, LLC, Comex Food Service, Inc.. (Bridges, Summer) |
Filing 13 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Comex Food Service, Inc., Plamex Investment, LLC.(Attorney Summer L Bridges added to party Comex Food Service, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Summer L Bridges added to party Plamex Investment, LLC(pty:dft))(Bridges, Summer) |
Filing 12 ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 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 to Plaintiff asserting it in state court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim. (iv) |
Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquezto 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 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez, upon Defendant Plamex Investment, LLC served on 1/6/2020, answer due 1/27/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez, upon Defendant Comex Food Service, Inc. served on 1/6/2020, answer due 1/27/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 8 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS 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 January 17, 2020. (iv) |
Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Comex Food Service, Inc., Plamex Investment, LLC. (jtil) |
Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (jtil) |
Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez, (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-25018245 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Luis Marquez(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.