Nehemiah Kong v. PCG San Clemente LP et al
| Nehemiah Kong |
| Does 1-10, PCG San Clemente LP and PCG Holdco LLC |
| 2:2020cv03302 |
| April 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F Eick |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to PCG Holdco LLC answer now due 6/24/2020; PCG San Clemente LP answer now due 6/24/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant PCG Holdco LLC; PCG San Clemente LP.(Attorney Rachel M Sanders added to party PCG Holdco LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Rachel M Sanders added to party PCG San Clemente LP(pty:dft))(Sanders, Rachel) |
Filing 15
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to this Order to Show Cause, the Court will accept the following no later than JUNE 16, 2020. BY DEFENDANTS: RESPONSES TO THE COMPLAINT OR BY PLAINTIFF: APPLICATIONS TO CLERK TO ENTER DEFAULT. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the dismissal of this action. (iv)
|
| Filing 14 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Dennis Jay Price, II counsel for Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong. Phyl Grace is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong. (Price, Dennis) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong, upon Defendant PCG San Clemente LP served on 5/2/2020, answer due 5/26/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Mark, co-owner of "Paragon Commercial Group in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong, upon Defendant PCG Holdco LLC served on 5/2/2020, answer due 5/26/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Mark, co-owner of "Paragon Commercial Group in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS. The Court denies Plaintiffs request for a stay or certification of an interlocutory appeal. Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act and any other construction related accessibility state claims asserted in the Complaint. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kongto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Proof of service)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdictionover the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff The Response shall be filed on or before APRIL 27, 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'sdeclining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (lom)
|
| 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 Defendants PCG Holdco LLC, PCG San Clemente LP. (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 Charles F. Eick. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Nehemiah Kong. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26024967 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Nehemiah Kong. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Nehemiah Kong(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.
