Federal Trade Commission et al v. James D. Noland et al
| Federal Trade Commission |
| James D. Noland, Jr., J. D. Noland, Success By Media LLC, Thomas G. Sacca, Jr., Scott A. Harris, Lina Noland, Success By Media Holdings Inc., Jay Noland, Success By Media LLC a limited liability company doing business as Success By Health doing business as Success By Media and Success By Media Holdings Inc. a corporation doing business as Success By Health doing business as Success By Media |
| Kimberly Friday |
| 2:2020mc00004 |
| January 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Travis C Hunt. 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. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Joseph Roth. 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. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Warren J Stapleton. 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. (ghap) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 754 Re: 2:20-mc-0004 from USDC of Arizona., filed by Receiver Kimberly Friday. (ghap) |
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.
