Jorge Alejandro Rojas v. Harlev Plumbing and Remodeling, Inc. et al
| Jorge Alejandro Rojas |
| Harlev Plumbing and Remodeling, Inc., Yaron Mualem and Chad Ramirez Sanchez |
| 2:2022cv00795 |
| February 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Michael R Wilner |
| Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
| Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (et) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jorge Alejandro Rojas. (et) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47, USC 227 against Defendants Harlev Plumbing and Remodeling, Inc., Yaron Mualem, Chad Ramirez Sanchez. Case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.(Filing fee $ 402 Paid), filed by Plaintiff Jorge Alejandro Rojas. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (et) |
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.
