Christina Arlington Smith et al v. TikTok Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Christina Arlington Smith, Lalani Walton, Herjberto Arroyo, Arrjani Jaileen Arroyo, Christal Arroyo and Heriberto Arroyo
Defendant: TikTok Inc., Bytedance Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive
Case Number: 2:2022cv04551
Filed: July 4, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Karen L Stevenson
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 7, 2022 Filing 12 REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. Each party must file form CV-11C within the consent deadlines pursuant to L.R. 73-2. Additionally, the parties are directed to L.R. 73-2.2 Proof of Service. In any case in which only a magistrate judge is initially assigned, plaintiff must file a proof of service within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint as to each defendant. (hr)
July 6, 2022 Filing 11 Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendants Bytedance Inc., TikTok Inc.. (Giang, Albert)
July 6, 2022 Filing 10 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Robert H. Klonoff. 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. (lh)
July 6, 2022 Filing 9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Christopher Ayers. 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. (lh)
July 6, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Christopher A. Seeger. 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. (lh)
July 6, 2022 Filing 7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Glenn S. Draper. 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. (lh)
July 6, 2022 Filing 6 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Matthew P. Bergman. 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. (lh)
July 6, 2022 Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (lh)
July 4, 2022 NON-CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Bytedance Inc., Does, TikTok Inc. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiffs Christal Arroyo, Heriberto Arroyo, Christina Arlington Smith. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh)
July 4, 2022 Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants Bytedance Inc., TikTok Inc. identifying ByteDance Ltd. as Corporate Parent. (Giang, Albert)
July 4, 2022 Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants Bytedance Inc., TikTok Inc. identifying TikTok LLC, TikTok Ltd., ByteDance Ltd. as Corporate Parent. (Giang, Albert)
July 4, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Bytedance Inc., TikTok Inc.. (Giang, Albert)
July 4, 2022 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Receipt No: ACACDC-33570842 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendants TikTok Inc., Bytedance Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-State Court Complaint, #2 Exhibit 2-State Court Docket) (Attorney Albert Q Giang added to party Bytedance Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Albert Q Giang added to party TikTok Inc.(pty:dft))(Giang, Albert)

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 this case: Christina Arlington Smith et al v. TikTok Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christina Arlington Smith
Represented By: Laura Marquez-Garrett
Represented By: Kevin Mathew Loew
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 ]
Plaintiff: Lalani Walton
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 ]
Plaintiff: Herjberto Arroyo
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 ]
Plaintiff: Arrjani Jaileen Arroyo
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 ]
Plaintiff: Christal Arroyo
Represented By: Laura Marquez-Garrett
Represented By: Kevin Mathew Loew
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 ]
Plaintiff: Heriberto Arroyo
Represented By: Laura Marquez-Garrett
Represented By: Kevin Mathew Loew
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: TikTok Inc.
Represented By: Albert Q Giang
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: Bytedance Inc.
Represented By: Albert Q Giang
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: Does 1-100, inclusive
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.


Why Is My Information Online?