Luken Communications, LLC v. Streann Media, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Luken Communications, LLC
Defendant: Streann Media, Inc. and Does 1 through 10
Case Number: 2:2021cv07367
Filed: September 14, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Percy Anderson
Referring Judge: Alexander F MacKinnon
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 16, 2021 Filing 11 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Los Angeles County Superior Court. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Los Angeles County Superior Court. (mrgo)
September 15, 2021 Filing 10 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE via ZOOM held before Judge Percy Anderson. At the status conference, Defendant's counsel was asked if he had any evidence concerning plaintiff's citizenship and was given an opportunity to supplement the allegations in the Notice of Removal. Defendant proffered no additional sufficient facts or argument in support of the Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and plaintiffs' counsel raised no objections to the Court's remanding of the action back to Los Angeles Superior Court. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 21STCV22942, for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (See document for details). (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: Pat Cuneo (video). (mrgo)
September 15, 2021 Filing 9 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Percy Anderson Status Conference via ZOOM is set for 9/15/2021 at 12:15 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kss) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
September 15, 2021 Filing 8 NOTICE Pendency of Other Actions or Proceedings filed by Defendant Streann Media, Inc.. (Lewis, Craig)
September 15, 2021 Filing 7 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Streann Media, Inc., identifying None. (Lewis, Craig)
September 15, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap)
September 15, 2021 Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap)
September 15, 2021 Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap)
September 15, 2021 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (ghap)
September 15, 2021 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Streann Media, Inc.. (Lewis, Craig)
September 14, 2021 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Streann Media, Inc. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Luken Communications, LLC. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 6/21/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL) (ghap)
September 14, 2021 CONFORMED FILED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Luken Communications, LLC, upon Defendant Streann Media, Inc. served on 8/18/2021, answer due 9/8/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon By Serving Glo Punzo, Agent for Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL) (ghap)
September 14, 2021 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, case number 21STCV22942 Receipt No: ACACDC-31983064 - Fee: $402, filed by defendant Streann Media, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- State Court Complaint, #2 Exhibit 2- Filed Proof of Service, #3 Exhibit 3- TN Department of State Filings, #4 Exhibit 4- CA Secretary of State Filings, #5 Exhibit 5- FL Division of Corporations Filings) (Attorney Craig Robert Lewis added to party Streann Media, Inc.(pty:dft))(Lewis, Craig)

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 this case: Luken Communications, LLC v. Streann Media, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Luken Communications, LLC
Represented By: Lawrence Philip House
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Streann Media, Inc.
Represented By: Craig Robert Lewis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Does 1 through 10
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?