Luis Marquez v. Fanzz Gear, Inc
| Luis Marquez |
| Fanzz Gear, Inc |
| 2:2021cv00659 |
| January 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Ronald SW Lew |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 23, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: granting #14 APPLICATION to Stay Case re Early Mediation ADA Disability Access Litigation as to All Defendants. This case is referred to: ADR PROCEDURE NO. 1. The ADR proceeding is to be completed no later than 6/14/2021. (lom)
|
| Filing 15 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc identifying FanzzLids Holdings, LLC as Corporate Parent. (Miyar, Ramon) |
| Filing 14 APPLICATION to Stay Case and Early Mediation re ADA Disability Access Litigation, filed by Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc. Application set for hearing on 4/6/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Application for Stay and Early Mediation) (Miyar, Ramon) |
| Filing 13 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc.(Miyar, Ramon) |
| Filing 12 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Fanzz Gear, Inc answer now due 3/8/2021, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc.(Attorney Ramon Andres Miyar added to party Fanzz Gear, Inc(pty:dft))(Miyar, Ramon) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez, upon Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc served on 2/1/2021, answer due 2/22/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for service of process: Incorporating Services- Jennifer Lee-Client Rep in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquezto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Order to Show Cause, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Handy, Russell) |
|
Filing 9
MINUT(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE EXERCISE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION RE STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than February 8, 2021. See order for further details. (shb)
|
| Filing 8 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (shb) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Fanzz Gear, Inc. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Luis Marquez, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-30216450 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Luis Marquez. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Luis Marquez(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.
