Brian Whitaker v. Duesenberg Investment Company et al
| Brian Whitaker |
| Duesenberg Investment Company and Marmalade, LLC |
| 2:2020cv10240 |
| November 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. Dismissal is with prejudice. (Seabock, Amanda) |
Filing 16
ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING DOCUMENTS TO REOPEN THE ACTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court hereby GRANTS the parties' Stipulation #15 . The deadline to file a Documents to Reopen the Action shall be extended up to and including to 3/30/2021. (gk)
|
| Filing 15 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File documents to reopen the action filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Seabock, Amanda) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING DOCUMENTS TO REOPEN THE ACTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Having read the Stipulation of the parties #13 , the Court hereby GRANTS the request. The deadline to file a Documents to Reopen the Action in the event settlement is not consummated shall be extended up to and including 3/16/2021. (gk)
|
| Filing 13 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File to extend the deadline to file Documents to Reopen the Action filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Seabock, Amanda) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: THE COURT having been advised by counsel that the action has been settled #10 ; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. This Court retains full jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Amanda Lockhart Seabock on behalf of Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (Seabock, Amanda) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Settlement and Request to Vacate All Currently Set Dates filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Seabock, Amanda) |
|
Filing 9
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb)
|
| Filing 8 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (cb) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Duesenberg Investment Company, Marmalade, LLC. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-28910728 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Brian Whitaker. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Brian Whitaker(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.
