Gustavo Heredia Viveros v. Belmont Village, L.P. et al
Gustavo Heredia Viveros |
Belmont Village, L.P., Does 1 though 20, Incusive and Does 1 though 20, inclusive |
2:2021cv06390 |
August 6, 2021 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Ronald SW Lew |
Michael R Wilner |
Labor: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The above matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on November 23, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. The conference will be held pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b). The parties are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the scheduling conference and report to the Court not later than 14 days after they confer as required by F.R.Civ.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Failure to comply may lead to the imposition of sanctions. See minute order for details. (lom) |
Filing 11 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Gustavo Heredia Viveros, identifying Gustavo Heredia Viveros. (Nalbandyan, Akop) |
Filing 10 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (esa) |
Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (esa) |
COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by defendant Belmont Village, L.P. (non-conformed, submitted as document 1, attachment 2)(esa) |
COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE executed by Plaintiff Gustavo Heredia Viveros, upon Defendant Belmont Village, L.P. served on 7/9/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CT Corporation, Agent for Service of Process, in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (filed in state court 7/12/2021, submitted as document 5, attachment 1, p. 28) (esa) |
CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against defendants Belmont Village, L.P., Does, Jury Demanded, filed by plaintiff Gustavo Heredia Viveros. (filed in state court 7/7/21, submitted as document 1, attachment 1) (esa) |
Filing 7 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P.. (Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 6 Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P. re: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 (Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 5 DECLARATION of Jack Jimenez re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits 1-6, #2 Exhibits 7-13)(Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 4 DECLARATION of Leslie White re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P.. (Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 3 DECLARATION of Matthew Barnes re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P.. (Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P., (Jimenez, Jack) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 21STCV24945 Receipt No: ACACDC-31765825 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Belmont Village, L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Complaint, #2 Answer) (Attorney Jack E Jimenez, Jr added to party Belmont Village, L.P.(pty:dft))(Jimenez, Jack) |
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.