Miguel Soto v. WRY Foothill LLC
| Miguel Soto |
| WRY Foothill LLC and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2022cv07247 |
| October 5, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alexander F MacKinnon |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel to the Court's Order to Show Cause #13 . The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any other construction-related accessibility claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice (lc)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Miguel Sototo Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #12 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers): by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than October 20, 2022. (lom)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers): Order Regarding Prosecution of Certain Cases Under the Americans With Disabilities Act by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court has presided over hundreds, if not thousands, of cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving access barriers in places of public accommodation. Most of these cases are brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms. Therefore, the Court finds that there is good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning basic case prosecution for cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving access barriers in places of public accommodation. See minute order for deadlines for 1. Proofs of Service; 2. Requests for Default; and 3. Motions for Default Judgment. (lom)
|
| Filing 10 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lom) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central District's website for additional information. See minute order for details. (lom)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant WRY Foothill LLC. (sh) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (sh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (sh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (sh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 Miguel Soto. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Miguel Soto. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34101840 - Fee: $402. (Attorney Jason J Kim added to party Miguel Soto(pty:pla))(Kim, Jason) |
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.
