Robert McClelland v. SE Pipeline Construction Company
Robert McClelland |
DOES 1-10, inclusive |
Robert McClelland, et al. and S E Pipeline Construction Company |
2:2022cv05172 |
July 26, 2022 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Andre Birotte |
Patricia Donahue |
Federal Employer's Liability |
29 U.S.C. ยง 185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court filed by Plaintiff Robert McClelland. Motion set for hearing on 10/21/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Arrash T. Fattahi, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Arrash T. Fattahi, #3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Arrash T. Fattahi, #4 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties (Local Rule 7.1-1), #5 Proposed Order) (Fattahi, Arrash) |
Filing 12 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO REMAND AND EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court hereby grants the Stipulation #11 and orders the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand: (a) Plaintiffs Deadline to File Motion to Remand is 9/23/2022; (b) Defendant's Deadline to File Opposition is 9/30/2022; (c) Plaintiff's Deadline to File Reply is 10/7/2022; (d) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand on 10/21/2022 at 10:00 AM. Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's initial complaint is 10/28/2022. (gk) |
Filing 11 STIPULATION for Order Granting Stipulation to Set Briefing Schedule for Motion to Remand and Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint filed by Plaintiff Robert McClelland. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Stipulation to Set Briefing Schedule for Motion to Remand and Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint)(Fattahi, Arrash) |
Filing 10 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to S E Pipeline Construction Company answer now due 9/1/2022, filed by Defendant S E Pipeline Construction Company.(Becker, Erick) |
Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant S E Pipeline Construction Company, served on July 28, 2022. (Becker, Erick) |
Filing 8 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb) |
Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) |
Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue. (jtil) |
CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Robert McClelland in Los Angeles Superior Court on 6/22/2022, attached as Exhibit A. (jtil) |
Filing 4 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant S E Pipeline Construction Company, re Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 served on July 26, 2022. (Becker, Erick) |
Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant S E Pipeline Construction Company, identifying S E Pipeline Construction Company. (Becker, Erick) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Movant S E Pipeline Construction Company. (Becker, Erick) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 22NWCV00496 Receipt No: ACACDC-33698928 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant S E Pipeline Construction Company. (Attorney Erick J Becker added to party S E Pipeline Construction Company(pty:bkmov))(Becker, Erick) |
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.