Antonio Fernandez v. Eugene Martnez et al
| Antonio Fernandez |
| Does 1-10, Isabel Rojas and Eugene Martnez |
| 2:2020cv08602 |
| September 21, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 19, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez, upon Defendant Eugene Martnez served on 10/19/2020, answer due 11/9/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jane doe co occupant in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez, upon Defendant Isabel Rojas served on 10/15/2020, answer due 11/5/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon John jordan 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 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandezto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Handy, Russell) |
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Response shall be filed on or before OCTOBER 8, 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's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (iv)
|
| 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 Eugene Martnez and Isabel Rojas. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Antonio Fernandez. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Antonio Fernandez, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-28162229 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Antonio Fernandez. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Antonio Fernandez(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.
