Ricardo Sherfield v. Stater Bros. Markets et al
| Ricardo Sherfield |
| DOES 1-10 and Stater Bros. Markets |
| 2:2020cv07675 |
| August 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Patricia Donahue |
| Mark C Scarsi |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. Scheduling Conference set for December 7, 2020 at 10:00 AM. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. (lom)
|
| Filing 17 Defendant's NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Stater Bros. Markets, identifying Stater Bros. Markets and Ricardo Sherfield. (Wolfe, Michelle) |
| Filing 16 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant Stater Bros. Markets.(Attorney Michelle McCoy Wolfe added to party Stater Bros. Markets(pty:dft))(Wolfe, Michelle) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#OCJ 20-115) approved by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Pursuant to the recommended procedure adopted by the Court for the CREATION OF CALENDAR of Judge Mark C. Scarsi, this case is transferred from Judge Otis D. Wright, II to the calendar of Judge Mark C. Scarsi for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:20-cv-07675 MCS(PDx). (rn)
|
|
Filing 14
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, 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 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ricardo Sherfield, upon Defendant Stater Bros. Markets served on 9/14/2020, answer due 10/5/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Linda Berdin - Person in charge 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 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Ricardo Sherfieldto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #11 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than September 11, 2020 why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. 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 and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c). (lc)
|
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: ORDER REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (SEE DOCUMENT SPECIFICS). The Court finds that there is good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning basic case prosecution for cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. In such cases: 1. Proofs of Service: Proofs of service for all defendants must be filed within 95 days. 2.Requests for Default: For any defendant who fails to respond to the complaint within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for whom no extension has been granted, a request for default must be filed no later than five court days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due. 3. Motions for Default Judgment: If only defaulted defendants remain in the case i.e., no other defendants were named or the claims against all other defendants have been resolved either by dismissal, motion, or trial a motion for default judgment must be filed within 10 calendar days of the last entry of default. Note that the Court is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, and, therefore, a motion for default judgment should not be filed if some defendants have appeared and the case has not otherwise been completely resolved. The failure to comply with this Order in a particular case will result in a sanction of $300.00 payable to the clerk of the court within two weeks of Plaintiff being given notice of noncompliance and dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Court finds these sanctions sufficient and necessary to deter violations of the Order and to achieve timely prosecution of these cases without unnecessary intervention by the Court. (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 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue. (car) |
| Filing 5 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Stater Bros. Markets. (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Ricardo Sherfield. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Ricardo Sherfield, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Ricardo Sherfield. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-27756208 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Ricardo Sherfield. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Ricardo Sherfield(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.
