Edgardo Carrillo v. LB/Rose 2010 LLC et al
Edgardo Carrillo |
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. and LB/Rose 2010 LLC |
2:2021cv00343 |
January 14, 2021 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Cormac J Carney |
Rozella A Oliver |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 21, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to LB/Rose 2010 LLC answer now due 3/31/2021, filed by Defendants Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.; LB/Rose 2010 LLC.(Attorney David E Karlin added to party LB/Rose 2010 LLC(pty:dft))(Karlin, David) |
Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo, upon Defendant LB/Rose 2010 LLC served on 2/8/2021, answer due 3/1/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: Norde Ying. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 13 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. answer now due 3/19/2021, filed by Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc..(Attorney David E Karlin added to party Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.(pty:dft))(Karlin, David) |
Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo, upon Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. served on 1/28/2021, answer due 2/18/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process: Corporation Service Company - Becky De George in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 11 ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S UNRUH ACT CLAIM by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. This claim is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff asserting it in state court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim. (et) |
Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Edgardo Carrilloto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Handy, Russell) |
Filing 9 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. ( Show Cause Response due by 1/20/2021.) (twdb) |
Filing 8 ORDER RE PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. (cw) |
Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., LB/Rose 2010 LLC. (et) |
Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney 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 Edgardo Carrillo. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo, (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-30034783 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Edgardo Carrillo(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.