Kandela, LLC v. Porch.com, Inc. et al
Kandela, LLC |
Does 1-20, inclusive, Porch.com, Inc. and Matthew Ehrlichman |
2:2020cv05383 |
June 17, 2020 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Pedro V Castillo |
Michael W Fitzgerald |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC, and has yet to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv) |
Filing 11 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before July 7, 2020, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's failure to respond by the above date will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. (iv) |
Filing 10 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING #9 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Defendants' responsive pleading, specifically a Motion to Compel Arbitration, shall be filed on or before July 23, 2020. (iv) |
Filing 9 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS filed by Defendants Matthew Ehrlichman, Porch.com, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Rice, Emily) |
Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (ghap) |
Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Matthew Ehrlichman, Porch.com, Inc., re Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #5 , Declaration #3 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #4 served on June 17, 2020. (Rice, Emily) |
Filing 5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN, PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, identifying Kandela, LLC Plaintiff, Porch.com, Inc. Defendant, Matthew Ehrlichman Defendant. (Rice, Emily) |
Filing 4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN, PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation. (Rice, Emily) |
Filing 3 DECLARATION of E. Lacey Rice re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 Re NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT filed by Defendants MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN, PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation. (Rice, Emily) |
Filing 2 DECLARATION of E. Lacey Rice re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendants MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN, PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation. (Rice, Emily) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, case number 20STCV17705 Receipt No: ACACDC-26848990 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendants MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN, PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation. (Attorney Emily Lacey Rice added to party MATTHEW EHRLICHMAN(pty:dft), Attorney Emily Lacey Rice added to party PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation(pty:dft))(Rice, Emily) |
CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1-20, inclusive, Matthew Ehrlichman, Porch.com, Inc. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Kandela, LLC. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 5/11/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A) (ghap) |
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.