Daisy Hoch v. Walmart et al
Daisy Hoch |
Walmart Inc., Walmart, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive |
2:2021cv05366 |
July 1, 2021 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Michael R Wilner |
P.I.: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 Receipt of documents remanded to Superior Court for the State of California. (vm) |
Filing 10 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. (vm) |
Filing 9 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Effective immediately, the matter herein shall be removed to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Remanding case to Case Terminated. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (vm) |
Filing 8 Joint STIPULATION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Defendant Walmart. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Joint Stipulation to Remand Action to State Court)(Valdes, Macy) |
Filing 7 REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. Each party must file form CV-11C within the consent deadlines pursuant to L.R. 73-2. Additionally, the parties are directed to L.R. 73-2.2 Proof of Service. In any case in which only a magistrate judge is initially assigned, plaintiff must file a proof of service within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint as to each defendant. (vm) |
Filing 6 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Notice to Counsel (CV-20a) Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program - optional form #4 is missing attachment CV11-C form. Corrected Notice has been issued see item 5. Docket item 4 should be disregarded. (car) |
Filing 5 CORRECTED NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (car) |
Filing 4 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (car) |
CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1-100, inclusive, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart, filed by Plaintiff Daisy Hoch. Filed in State Court on 12/30/2020 Submitted with Attachment 3 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) filed by Plaintiff Walmart. Filed in State Court on 4/2/2021 Submitted with Attachment 8 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Walmart Inc., identifying Walmart Inc.. (Valdes, Macy) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Walmart Inc.. (Valdes, Macy) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 20AVCV00911 Receipt No: ACACDC-31565893 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Walmart Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Macy Valdes, Esq. in Support of Defendant Walmart Inc.'s Notice of Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 and 1441(b) [DIVERSITY], #2 Notice of Lodgment of State Court File, #3 Complaint, #4 Summons, #5 Civil Case Cover Sheet, #6 Notice of Case Assignment, #7 Proof of Service of Summons, #8 Defendant Walmart Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint) (Attorney Macy Valdes added to party Walmart Inc.(pty:dft))(Valdes, Macy) |
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.