Estrellita Romero v. United States Postal Service et al
| Estrellita Romero |
| Wesley Scott Hubbard, United States Postal Service and Does 1 to 10, Inclusive |
| 2:2020cv04903 |
| June 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Virginia A Phillips |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2674 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Estrellita Romero, upon Defendant Wesley Scott Hubbard served on 6/10/2020, answer due 7/1/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Wesley Scott Hubbard, Defendant in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Estrellita Romero, upon Defendant United States Postal Service served on 6/11/2020, answer due 8/14/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to E. Santander, Receptionist & Authorized Person. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with statute not specified. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Estrellita Romero, upon Defendant United States Postal Service served on 6/15/2020, answer due 8/14/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Alvin Simpkins, Jr., Authorized Agent. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Proof of Service as to US Atty General)(Juarez, Mario) |
Filing 11
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (cch)
|
| Filing 10 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Wesley Scott Hubbard. (ghap) |
| Filing 9 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant United States Postal Service. (ghap) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Virginia A. Phillips and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Estrellita Romero. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Estrellita Romero. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 4 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by plaintiff Estrellita Romero.. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Estrellita Romero, (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Estrellita Romero. (Juarez, Mario) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26656886 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Estrellita Romero. (Attorney Mario Armando Juarez added to party Estrellita Romero(pty:pla))(Juarez, Mario) |
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.
