Carlos Marsh v. MGP X Properties, LLC et al
| Carlos Marsh |
| DOES 1-10 and MGP X Properties, LLC |
| 2:2020cv05641 |
| June 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Kenly Kiya Kato |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 19
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel to the Courts Order to Show Cause. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs request to certify a constitutional question to Californias Attorney General. Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc)
|
|
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff(s) is ordered to show cause in writing no later than August 27, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will consider the filing of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Plaintiff's filing of a noticed motion for entry of default judgment for the defendant. Failure to respond to the Court's Order may result in the dismissal of the action. (lc)
|
| Filing 17 DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to MGP X Properties, LLC (lc) |
| Filing 16 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against Defendant MGP X Properties, LLC filed by Plaintiff Carlos Marsh. (Attachments: #1 Declaration) (Seabock, Amanda) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Carlos Marsh, re Response #12 , Notice (Other) #13 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #10 served on 07/23/20. (Price, Dennis) |
|
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:Plaintiff(s) is ordered to show cause in writing no later than July 24, 2020 why this action should notbe dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will consider the filing of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date:Plaintiff's request for entry of default as to the defendant. In the event both documents are filed before the above date, the answer will take precedence.Answer by the defendant(s). The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Court'sOrder may result in the dismissal of the action. (lc)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Constitutional Question filed by Plaintiff Carlos Marsh. (Price, Dennis) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Carlos Marshto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #10 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3)(Price, Dennis) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carlos Marsh, upon Defendant MGP X Properties, LLC served on 6/29/2020, answer due 7/20/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: PARACORP INCORPORATED MATTHEW MARZUCCO (Blaici Xiong - Client resp) in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint.Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than July 15, 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 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c). (lc)
|
| Filing 9 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. Please refer to the Judges procedures and schedules for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. (lc)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant MGP X Properties, LLC. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Carlos Marsh. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Carlos Marsh, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Carlos Marsh. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: CCACDC-26946106 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Carlos Marsh. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Carlos Marsh(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.
