Orlando Garcia v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. et al
| Orlando Garcia |
| DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation, DOES 1-10 and Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. |
| 2:2020cv01491 |
| February 14, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| 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 March 19, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to F.R.CIV.P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Attorney Amanda Lockhart Seabock added to party Orlando Garcia(pty:pla))(Seabock, Amanda) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garciato Order to Show Cause,, #9 (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 Orlando Garcia, upon Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. served on 2/19/2020, answer due 3/11/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: Corporation Service Company which will do business in California as Csc - Lawyers Incorporating Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Price, Dennis) |
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The Response shall be filed on or before MARCH 4, 2020. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (iv)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE to Parties Re (ADR-20) ADA Disability Access Litigation/Application for Stay and Early Mediation: PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED to serve the ADA Packet on Defendant(s) at the same time the summons and complaint are served, if possible. If, upon receipt of this Notice to Parties, Plaintiff has already served Defendant(s), Plaintiff must serve the ADA Packet no later than fourteen (14) days after this Notice to Parties is filed by the Court. Within three (3) days of serving Defendant(s), Plaintiff must file with the Court a proof of service indicating that the ADA Packet was served on Defendant(s). *See Notice for further details.* (smom) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (et) |
| 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: 0973-25327677 - 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.
