Craig McRae et al v. Ring LLC
| Craig McRae and Robert Pasko |
| Ring LLC |
| 2:2020cv01312 |
| February 10, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Michael R Wilner |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Craig McRae. AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED CASE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83-1.3.1 Related Case(s): 0:19-cv-10899, 2:19-cv-10899, 2:20-cv-00074, 2:20-cv-01034, 2:20-cv-01168, 2:20-cv-01538 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Robert Pasko, Craig McRae, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Registered Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Mah, Rosanne) |
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant All Defendants amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , filed by Plaintiff Craig McRae (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiff Robert Pasko, Craig McRae pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PLAINTIFF ROBERT PASKO as to All Defendants. (Rivas, Rosemary) |
Filing 11
ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 19-03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:19-cv-10899 MWF(RAOx) (rn)
|
|
Filing 10
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. (rfi)
|
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Ring LLC. (jtil) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Craig McRae, Robert Pasko. Related Case(s): 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO, 2:20-cv-00074-MWF-RAO, 2:20-cv-01034 AB (KSx) (Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiffs Craig McRae, Robert Pasko. A as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . (Mah, Rosanne) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs, (Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Craig McRae, Robert Pasko. (Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Craig McRae, Robert Pasko. (Rivas, Rosemary) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-25292498 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Robert Pasko, Craig McRae. (Attorney Rosemary M Rivas added to party Craig McRae(pty:pla), Attorney Rosemary M Rivas added to party Robert Pasko(pty:pla))(Rivas, Rosemary) |
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.
