Park v. Adobe Systems
Hyeyoung Park |
Adobe Systems |
2:2022cv04226 |
June 19, 2022 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
Michael R Wilner |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 APPLICATION AND DECLARATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL (seal filed document docket no.1) filed by plaintiff Hyeyoung Park. (Attachments: #1 proposed order) (lc) |
Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE of Summons; Complaint Executed by Plaintiff Hyeyoung Park, upon Defendant Adobe Systems served on 7/29/2022, answer due 8/19/2022. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon John Doe (Refused Name) in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.(lom) |
Filing 11 INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf) |
Filing 10 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO SEAL COMPLAINT #9 ; ORDER TEMPORARILY SEALING COMPLAINT UNTIL AUGUST 31, 2022 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: As Plaintiff is in pro se the court ORDERS the Complaint be temporarily SEALED until August 31, 2022, to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to file a renewed application to seal. Any such renewed application must comply with all applicable statutory requirements and court rules, including the requirements of Local Rule 79- 5.2.2. (lc) |
Filing 9 REQUEST TO SEAL THE FILED DOCUMENT filed by plaintiff Hyeyoung Park. (Attachments: #1 Proposed order) (lc) |
Filing 8 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Notice to Parties ADA Disability Access Litigation (ADR-20) #7 Docketed on this case in error. Should have been under 2:22-cv-04157-FLA-SKx Benford vs Lenz. (lc) |
Filing 7 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
Filing 6 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), #1 as to defendant Adobe Systems. (lc) |
Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (sh) |
Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (sh) |
Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (sh) |
Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Hyeyoung Park, (sh) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Adobe Systems.Case assigned to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner.(Filing fee $ 402 FEE PAID), filed by Plaintiff Hyeyoung Park. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (sh) |
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
Search for this case: Park v. Adobe Systems | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Hyeyoung Park | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Adobe Systems | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.