Randy Romero v. County of Los Angeles
| Randy Romero |
| County of Los Angeles and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2022cv00282 |
| January 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Rozella A Oliver |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Hilary Anne Khoury counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles. Adding Hilary Harris as counsel of record for County of Los Angeles for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attorney Hilary Anne Khoury added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Khoury, Hilary) |
| Filing 14 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Diane Martinez counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles. Adding Diane Martinez as counsel of record for COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attorney Diane Martinez added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Martinez, Diane) |
Filing 13
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are ordered to appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for 3/28/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (rfi)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, (Hurrell, Thomas) |
| Filing 11 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(Attorney Thomas C Hurrell added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Hurrell, Thomas) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant County of Los Angeles. (jtil) |
|
Filing 9
STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (rfi)
|
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Randy Romero. (Peacock, Gregory) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Randy Romero, identifying County of Los Angeles. (Peacock, Gregory) |
| Filing 3 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Plaintiff Randy Romero.. (Peacock, Gregory) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Randy Romero. (Peacock, Gregory) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32619038 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Randy Romero. (Attorney Gregory Paul Peacock added to party Randy Romero(pty:pla))(Peacock, Gregory) |
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.
