Jorge Castillo v. Ford Motor Company, et al
Plaintiff: Jorge Castillo
Defendant: Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Case Number: 2:2021cv07465
Filed: September 17, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Percy Anderson
Referring Judge: Patricia Donahue
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 6, 2021 Filing 14 Receipt of Order of Remand filed. (mrgo)
September 21, 2021 Filing 13 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 20, 2021 Filing 12 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. Plaintiff's counsel moved for the Court to remand the action to Los Angeles Superior Court based on Defendant's failure to adequately allege a basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal. Based on Defendant's failure to satisfy its burden to adequately allege a basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court grants plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 21STCV30439, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser-Video. (mrgo)
September 20, 2021 Filing 9 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Percy Anderson Status Conference via ZOOM is set for 9/20/2021 at 01:00 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kss) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
September 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. (See document for details) (mrgo)
September 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [FRCP 16, 26(f)] ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. (Scheduling Conference set for 11/1/2021 at 10:30 AM before Judge Percy Anderson.) (mrgo)
September 17, 2021 Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (esa)
September 17, 2021 Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa)
September 17, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue. (esa)
September 17, 2021 Filing 5 ANSWER to Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation.(Ihara, Karyn)
September 17, 2021 Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation (Ihara, Karyn)
September 17, 2021 Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, (Ihara, Karyn)
September 17, 2021 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation. (Ihara, Karyn)
September 17, 2021 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angels Superior Court, case number 21STCV30439 Receipt No: ACACDC-32002647 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Karyn Ihara, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Attorney Karyn L Ihara added to party Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation(pty:dft))(Ihara, Karyn)
September 17, 2021 CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against defendants Does, Ford Motor Company, filed by plaintiff Jorge Castillo. (filed in state court 8/17/2021, submitted as document 1, attachment 2) (esa)
September 17, 2021 COPY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS TRANSMITTAL executed by Plaintiff Jorge Castillo, upon Defendant Ford Motor Company served on 8/23/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CT Corporation, Agent for Service of Process, by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (submitted as document 1, attachment 2, p. 2) (esa)

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: Jorge Castillo v. Ford Motor Company, 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: Jorge Castillo
Represented By: David N Barry
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: Ford Motor Company
Represented By: Judd A Gilefsky
Represented By: Karyn L Ihara
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 20, inclusive
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?