Jorge Lopez v. Signature Retail Services, Inc.
| Jorge Lopez |
| Signature Retail Services, Inc. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive |
| 2:2021cv02834 |
| April 1, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Alexander F MacKinnon |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER RE JURY TRIAL by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.Last Day to Add Parties/Amend Pleadings 10/4/2021. Non-expert Discovery Cut-off 2/25/2022. Last Day to Hear Motions 3/28/2022. File Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, Exhibit and Witness Lists, Status Report regarding settlement, and all Motions in Limine 5/17/2022. Final Pretrial Conference and Hearing on Motions in Limine set for 6/6/2022 at 11:00 AM. Trial Date (Est. 4 Days) set for 6/28/2022 at 8:30 AM. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (iv)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 4/8/2022. (iv)
|
|
Filing 11
SCHEDULING NOTICE and ORDER by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Pursuant to General Order 21-03, the Court VACATES the Scheduling Conference set for 5/10/2021 at 11:00 a.m. No appearances shall be made. The Court will review the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report and issue pretrial and trial dates by separate order. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (smom) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 10 JOINT REPORT of RULE 26(F) filed by Plaintiff Jorge Lopez. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES WORKSHEET)(Rothman, Ben) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. This case has been assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. This matter is set for a scheduling conference 05/10/21 at 11:00 AM. (pg)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc. filed on 4/1/2021, attached as Exhibit C.(jtil) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Jorge Lopez in Los Angeles Superior Court on 2/1/2021, attached as Exhibit A. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc., identifying Signature Retail Services, Inc.. (Antonyan, Armine) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc. identifying No corporate parent as Corporate Parent. (Antonyan, Armine) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc.. (Antonyan, Armine) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc.. Related Case(s): None known (Antonyan, Armine) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 21STCV03758 Receipt No: ACACDC-31031996 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Signature Retail Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Armine Antonyan, #2 Declaration Michael Chiappetta, #3 Exhibit) (Attorney Armine Antonyan added to party Signature Retail Services, Inc.(pty:dft))(Antonyan, Armine) |
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.
