Jasmine Alonzo v. Starbucks Corporation et al
| Jasmine Alonzo |
| Starbucks Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive |
| 2:2022cv01785 |
| March 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Eastern Division. Case has been assigned to Judge John W. Holcomb for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Sheri Pym. New Case Number 5:22-cv-00491-JWH-SPx. (car) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, (Forsey, Morgan) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Forsey, Morgan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIVSB2125436 Receipt No: ACACDC-32965660 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Dora Rozelle, #2 Declaration of Tracey Kennedy) (Attorney Morgan P Forsey added to party Starbucks Corporation(pty:dft))(Forsey, Morgan) |
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.
