Orlando Garcia v. Setco and Sons Inc. et al
| Orlando Garcia |
| DOES 1-10, Setco & Sons Inc., and Setco and Sons Inc. |
| 2:2020cv08655 |
| September 22, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Rozella A Oliver |
| 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 October 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to filed by Defendant Setco & Sons Inc. Setco and Sons Inc..(Attorney Paul Tokar added to party Setco and Sons Inc.(pty:dft))(Tokar, Paul) |
Filing 15
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 14 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garciato Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #11 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Proof of Service)(Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, upon Defendant Setco and Sons Inc. served on 10/5/2020, answer due 10/26/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: Hayk Igraryan in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: ORDER REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 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. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC ENUMERATED REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES THEREIN). 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 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 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 USC1367(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. 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. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC ENUMERATED REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES THEREIN). 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 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Setco and Sons Inc. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-28179080 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Orlando Garcia(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.
