Orlando Garcia v. El Pueblito LLC et al
| Orlando Garcia |
| Does 1-10 and El Pueblito LLC |
| 2:2020cv01443 |
| February 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L Abrams |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 15, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Amanda Lockhart Seabock on behalf of Plaintiff Orlando Garcia (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Seabock, Amanda) |
Filing 14
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Judge Cormac J. Carney. On March 26, 2020, the clerk entered default as to the defendant #13 . Plaintiff shall move for default judgment within 30 days of this order. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (gga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 13 DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to El Pueblito LLC. (iv) |
| Filing 12 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against Defendant El Pueblito LLC filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proof of Service) (Attorney Amanda Lockhart Seabock added to party Orlando Garcia(pty:pla)) (Seabock, Amanda) |
|
Filing 11
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 for Plaintiff to assert it in state court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim. (et)
|
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, upon Defendant El Pueblito LLC served on 3/2/2020, answer due 3/23/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: Ana Luisa Dominguez in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Price, Dennis) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garciato 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 8
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S 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 March 2, 2020. (iv)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant El Pueblito LLC. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-25317833 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Orlando Garcia(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.
