James Shayler v. Wells Fargo and Company et al
| JAMES SHAYLER, an individual, and James Shayler |
| DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware Corporation, Does 1-10, inclusive and Wells Fargo and Company |
| 2:2021cv02729 |
| March 30, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Margo A Rocconi |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In light of the Notice of Settlement #16 , indicating that the case has settled in its entirety, this action is placed on inactive status. By July 27, 2021, the parties shall file a dismissal that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action. All dates and deadlines in this action are VACATED and taken off calendar. (lc)
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Defendant Wells Fargo and Company. (Gao, Kathy) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Shayler, upon Defendant Wells Fargo and Company served on 4/8/2021, answer due 5/28/2021. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 14 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Wells Fargo and Company answer now due 5/28/2021, filed by Defendant Wells Fargo and Company.(Attorney Kathy H Gao added to party Wells Fargo and Company(pty:dft))(Gao, Kathy) |
|
Filing 13
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel to the Court's Order to Show Cause. The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility state law claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc)
|
| Filing 12 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Shaylerto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #11 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Shayler)(Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing No Later Than April 15, 2021 why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367 (c). (lc) Modified on 4/2/2021 (lc).
|
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: ORDER REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The Court finds that there is good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning basic case prosecution for cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC ENUMERATED REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES THEREIN). The failure to comply with this Order in a particular case will result in a sanction of $300.00 payable to the clerk of the court within two weeks of Plaintiff being given notice of noncompliance and dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Court finds these sanctions sufficient and necessary to deter violations of the Order and to achieve timely prosecution of these cases without unnecessary intervention by the Court. (lc)
|
| Filing 9 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. The Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) allows people without lawyers who have pending cases in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to submit documents electronically to the Clerks Office The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. Please refer to Courts Website and Judges procedures for information as applicable. (lc)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Wells Fargo and Company. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff JAMES SHAYLER, an individual,. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff JAMES SHAYLER, an individual,. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff JAMES SHAYLER, an individual,, (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31010993 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff JAMES SHAYLER, an individual,. (Attorney Joseph Richard Manning, Jr added to party JAMES SHAYLER, an individual, (pty:pla))(Manning, Joseph) |
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.
