GURI GONZALEZ v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION et al
| GURI GONZALEZ |
| EUGENE WEISS, TRUSTEE OF WEISS FAMILY TRUST OF 2002, STARBUCKS CORPORATION, EUGENE WEISS and STARBUCKS CORPORATION doing business as STARBUCKS COFFEE NO. 6744 |
| 2:2020cv01791 |
| February 25, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff GURI GONZALEZ. Dismissal is With prejudice. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 11
MINUTES ORDER [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. In light of the foregoing, the Court, in its disretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state claims asserted in the Complaint. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. See 28 USC 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4). (et)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff GURI GONZALEZto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #8 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants STARBUCKS CORPORATION, EUGENE WEISS. (jtil) |
|
Filing 8
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 and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The Response shall be filed on or before MARCH 13, 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 7 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 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff GURI GONZALEZ, (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff GURI GONZALEZ. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff GURI GONZALEZ. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-25498376 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff GURI GONZALEZ. (Attorney Jason J Kim added to party GURI GONZALEZ(pty:pla))(Kim, Jason) |
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.
