Fatemeh Mahalati v. Matthew Gary Shultz et al
Fatemeh Mahalati |
Matthew Gary Shultz and Gary Shultz |
2:2022cv00803 |
February 4, 2022 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Stanley Blumenfeld |
Alka Sagar |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid ($402 paid on 02/04/2022, receipt number ACACDC-32743407), filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati.(Kolasinski, Patrick) |
Filing 12 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Complaint #1 . The following error(s) was found: The name and address of the attorney for plaintiff(s)must be entered in the appropriate field. The Summons lacks the case number 2:22-cv-00803-SB-ASx. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (gk) |
Filing 11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati. (Kolasinski, Patrick) |
Filing 10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati. (Kolasinski, Patrick) |
Filing 9 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati, (Kolasinski, Patrick) |
Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (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) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Greg McLawsen on behalf on Plaintiff. 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. (ghap) |
Filing 6 CIVIL STANDING ORDER upon the filing of the complaint by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (jgr) |
Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (ghap) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati. (Kolasinski, Patrick) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32743407 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Fatemeh Mahalati. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Redacted Primary Sponsor Affidavit of Support, #2 Exhibit Ex. 2 - Redacted Joint Sponsor Affidavit of Support) (Attorney Patrick Michael Kolasinski added to party Fatemeh Mahalati(pty:pla))(Kolasinski, Patrick) |
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.