Duntray Hardeman v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Plaintiff: Duntray Hardeman
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Does 1 through 100, inclusive
Case Number: 2:2020cv09569
Filed: October 19, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Pedro V Castillo
Referring Judge: Mark C Scarsi
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 12, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 12, 2020 Filing 15 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, identifying Union Pacific Corporation; Southern Pacific Rail Corporation. (Flesher, Jacob)
October 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kyle W. Chapel to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Duntray Hardeman and designating Jeffrey A. Millman as local counsel #13 by Judge Mark C. Scarsi (lc)
October 26, 2020 Filing 13 First APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kyle W. Chapel to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Duntray Hardeman (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-28701931) filed by Plaintiff Duntray Hardeman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order On Application to Apepar Pro Hac Vice) (Milman, Jeffrey)
October 22, 2020 Filing 12 AMENDED CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Flesher, Jacob)
October 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER that the Scheduling Conference is set for January 11, 2021 10:00 AM ; compliance with FRCP 16, and 26(f) and filing of joint report; Counsel for plaintiff or if plaintiff is in Pro Se, defendants counsel shall immediately serve this Order to any parties accordingly. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR ALL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS) by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. (lc)
October 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE MARK C. SCARSI (SEE DOCUMENT FOR COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND SERVICE OF THIS ORDER ON ALL PARTIES BY PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IF CASE CAME TO THE COURT AS A PETITION FOR REMOVAL) by Judge Mark C. Scarsi (lc)
October 21, 2020 Filing 9 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: RE ATTACHMENT 3 (Coversheet) TO Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), TO DOCKET NO.1 by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. The document is stricken and counsel is ordered to file an amended or corrected document by 10/23/20. (lc)
October 21, 2020 Filing 8 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error please disregard Docket Entry NON-CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER as it was inadvertently docketed. Re: Answer to Complaint. (lh)
October 21, 2020 Filing 7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Kyle W. Chapel. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh)
October 21, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Michael E. Pierce. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh)
October 21, 2020 Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Attachments No. 3 Civil Cover Sheet should not have been attached to Docket Entry No. 1. Each document should have been filed separately. You are not required to take any action to correct this deficiency unless the Court so directs. (lh)
October 21, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh)
October 21, 2020 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Mark C. Scarsi and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (lh)
October 19, 2020 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, Union Pacific Railroad Company. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff Duntray Hardeman. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 8/12/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh)
October 19, 2020 NON-CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint, filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 )(lh)
October 19, 2020 Filing 2 ANSWER to Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Flesher, Jacob)
October 19, 2020 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 20STCV30600 Receipt No: ACACDC-28602220 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Attorney Jacob D Flesher added to party Union Pacific Railroad Company(pty:dft))(Flesher, Jacob)

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 this case: Duntray Hardeman v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Duntray Hardeman
Represented By: Jeffrey A. Milman
Represented By: Michael E Pierce
Represented By: Kyle W. Chapel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company
Represented By: Jacob D Flesher
Represented By: Jeremy James Schroeder
Represented By: Jason W Schaff
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Represented By: Jeremy James Schroeder
Represented By: Jason W Schaff
Represented By: Jacob D Flesher
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does 1 through 100, inclusive
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?