Orlando Garcia v. Deanna Antoinette Ductoc et al
| Orlando Garcia |
| Does 1-10, Angel Daniel Ductoc Jr and Deanna Antoinette Ductoc |
| Michael Karagozian |
| 2:2020cv09097 |
| October 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Pedro V Castillo |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Panel Mediator. Mediator (ADR Panel) Michael Karagozian has been assigned to serve as Panel Mediator. (lst) |
| Filing 19 STIPULATION REGARDING SELECTION of Panel Mediator filed. Parties stipulate that Michael Karagozian may serve as Panel Mediator. Plaintiff obtained the Panel Mediators consent to serve. Filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia(Montgomery, Elliott) |
Filing 18
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint #10 . Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause #11 , the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. The Court also declines Plaintiff's request to invite the California Attorney General to weigh in on the issue. Should the State seek to file an amicus brief addressing Plaintiffs' concerns, it is welcome to do so without invitation. The Court therefore dismisses the state law claim without prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Granting #16 APPLICATION to Stay Case re Early Mediation ADA Disability Access Litigation as to Defendants Deanna Antoinette Ductoc and Angel Daniel Ductoc, Jr. The ADR proceeding is to be completed no later than 2/1/2021. (gk)
|
| Filing 16 First APPLICATION to Stay Case and Early Mediation re ADA Disability Access Litigation, filed by Defendants, Deanna Antoinette Ductoc and Angel Daniel Ductoc, Jr. doing business as Los Angelitos Bakery Deanna Antoinette Ductoc. (Garber, Adolfo) |
| Filing 15 First NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants, Deanna Antionette Ductuc; Angel Daniel Ductoc, Jr., doing business as Los Angelitos Bakery All Defendants, (Attorney Adolfo Bojalil Garber added to party Angel Daniel Ductoc Jr(pty:dft), Attorney Adolfo Bojalil Garber added to party Does(pty:dft))(Garber, Adolfo) |
| Filing 14 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants, Deanna Antoinette Ductoc and Angel Daniel Ductoc, Jr. doing business as Los Angelitos Bakery Deanna Antoinette Ductoc. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Attorney Adolfo Bojalil Garber added to party Deanna Antoinette Ductoc(pty:dft))(Garber, Adolfo) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, upon Defendant Deanna Antoinette Ductoc served on 10/24/2020, answer due 11/16/2020. 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 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, upon Defendant Angel Daniel Ductoc Jr served on 10/24/2020, answer due 11/16/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sandra colmenarios 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 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Orlando Garciato Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #10 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 10
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIM by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by October 26, 2020. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c). (iv)
|
| Filing 9 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (kti) |
|
Filing 8
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendants Angel Daniel Ductoc Jr, Deanna Antoinette Ductoc. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (esa) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Orlando Garcia. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE 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-28370635 - 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.
