David Allsop v. Target Corporation
| David Allsop |
| TARGET CORPORATION and Does 1 to 100 inclusive |
| 2:2020cv00399 |
| January 14, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Receipt of Letter of Transmittal - Remand to Superior Court. (jp) |
| Filing 11 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (lom) |
Filing 10
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number 19STCV27051. See order for specifics. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom)
|
| Filing 9 First STIPULATION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Defendant Target Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Halm, David) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are ordered to appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for 3/16/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (pbl)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (pbl)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (lh) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint, filed by Defendant Target Corporation. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 11/08/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 )(lh) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 to 100, Target Corporation. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff David Allsop. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 8/01/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh) |
| Filing 4 FIRST NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant All Defendants, identifying Target Corporation. (Halm, David) |
| Filing 3 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Defendant TARGET CORPORATION.. (Halm, David) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant TARGET CORPORATION. (Halm, David) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior, case number 19STCV27051 Receipt No: 0973-25122541 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant TARGET CORPORATION. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Complaint, #2 Exhibit Answer, #3 Exhibit Special Interrogatories, #4 Exhibit Responses Special Interrogatories, #5 Exhibit Statement Damages) (Attorney David G Halm added to party TARGET CORPORATION(pty:dft))(Halm, David) |
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.
