Jasmine Williams et al v. City of Beverly Hills
Williams Jasmine and Khalil White |
City of Beverly Hills, a public entity, Captain Scott Dowling, Sergeant Dale Drummond, erroneously sued as Sergeant D.D., Officer Jon Ilusorio, erroneously sued as Officer J.I., Officer Jonathan De La Cruz, erroneously sued as Officer J.D., City of Beverly Hills, Sergeant Dale Drummond, Officer Jon Ilusorio, Officer Jonathan De La Cruz and Does 1 through 100, inclusive |
2:2021cv08698 |
November 3, 2021 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
Rozella A Oliver |
Civil Rights: Other |
28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Filing 20 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Susan E. Sullivan to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481382) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) |
Filing 19 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Arthur J. Reliford to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481373) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) |
Filing 18 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Andrew A. Lothson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant City of Beverly Hills (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-32481356) filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case Pro Hac Vice) (Spradlin, Daniel) |
![]() |
Filing 16 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin L. Crump to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Williams Jasmine, Khalil White (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. BCACDC-32441531) filed by plaintiff Williams Jasmine, Khalil White. (Attachments: #1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - FL, #2 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - TN, #3 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - DC, #4 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing - ND FL, #5 Proposed Order) (Gage, Bradley) |
Filing 15 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) |
![]() |
Filing 13 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 24, 2022 re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kraus, Roberta) |
![]() |
Filing 11 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Beverly Hills answer now due 12/10/2021, re Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills.(Kraus, Roberta) |
Filing 10 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Mark T Harris on behalf of Plaintiffs. 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. (et) |
Filing 9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Benjamin Crump on behalf of Plaintiffs. 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. (et) |
Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (et) |
NON-CONFORMED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Executed by Plaintiff Khalil White, Williams Jasmine, upon Defendant City of Beverly Hills served on 10/4/2021, answer due 10/25/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael Dunn, City Clerk in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. [SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 . (et) |
CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Beverly Hills, Jonathan De La Cruz(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jonathan De La Cruz(individual), Does, Scott Dowling(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Scott Dowling(individual), Dale Drummond(individual), Dale Drummond(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills), Jon Ilusorio(individual), Jon Ilusorio(official capacities as employees of the City of Beverly Hills). Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiffs Khalil White, Williams Jasmine. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 8/30/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 . (et) |
Filing 5 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Jeanne L. Tollison as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) |
Filing 4 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Roberta A Kraus counsel for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. Adding Daniel K. Spradlin as counsel of record for Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) |
Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Kraus, Roberta) |
Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity, (Kraus, Roberta) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior, Central, case number 21STCV31949 Receipt No: ACACDC-32269019 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant City of Beverly Hills, a public entity. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Proof of Service) (Attorney Roberta A Kraus added to party City of Beverly Hills, a public entity(pty:dft))(Kraus, Roberta) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.