Tonette Carmeli et al v. Razor USA, LLC
| Tonette Carmeli and Crystal Brank |
| Razor USA, LLC |
| 2:2021cv07123 |
| September 3, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Steve Kim |
| James V Selna |
| Prop. Damage Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER RE SERVICE AND DEFENDANT RAZOR USA LLC'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT by Judge James V. Selna Granting Stipulation for Order #12 . It is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The time for Defendant Razor USA LLC to respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned action shall be extended to and including December 3, 2021. (es)
|
| Filing 13 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Razor USA, LLC (Nadolenco, John) |
| Filing 12 Joint STIPULATION for Order re Service and Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint #1 filed by Defendant Razor USA, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney John Nadolenco added to party Razor USA, LLC(pty:dft))(Nadolenco, John) |
|
Filing 11
Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference for 12/06/2021 at 10:00 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule 26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 11/19/2021. (lb)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: Granting #9 Non-Resident Attorney Charles D. Moore APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff(s) Tonette Carmeli and Crystal Brank, designating George V. Granade as local counsel. (es)
|
| Filing 9 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Charles D. Moore to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Crystal Brank, Tonette Carmeli (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-31963598) filed by Plaintiffs Crystal Brank, Tonette Carmeli. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Granade, George) |
| Filing 8 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA (lb) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Charles D Moore. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (car) |
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (car) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiff Tonette Carmeli (Reese, Michael) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Tonette Carmeli. (Reese, Michael) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31927820 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Tonette Carmeli. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2) (Attorney Michael R. Reese added to party Tonette Carmeli(pty:pla))(Reese, Michael) |
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.
