Michele Saywell v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.
| Michele Saywell |
| Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2022cv07292 |
| October 6, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [FRCP 16, 26(f)] by Judge Otis D. Wright, II, Scheduling Conference set for 1/23/2023 at 01:30 PM. [See document for details.] (es) |
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: re: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. The address is "http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov." [SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.] (es)
|
| Filing 17 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition #16 filed by defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc..(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 16 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Michele Saywell amending Complaint - (Discovery), JURY DEMAND, filed by Plaintiff Michele Saywell(Hickox, Cindy) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT #14 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Pursuant to Central District Local Rule 15-1, Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint, as was attached to the Joint Stipulation as Exhibit A, within 3 days of the date of this Order. Defendant must file its responsive pleading within 14 days from the date Plaintiff files the First Amended Complaint. (lc)
|
| Filing 14 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 13 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. answer now due 11/10/2022, re Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less) #12 filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc..(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 12 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. answer now due 10/27/2022, re Complaint - (Discovery), filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc..(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Document RE: Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Document #10 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Stipulation: Extending time to answer (30 days or Less). The incorrect event did NOT extend any time to defendant to answer. Other error(s) with document(s): Note: To assist in a search for correct events, please use the "SEARCH" option for a "key word" to narrow the selection process. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lc) |
| Filing 10 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc..(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., re Declaration, #4 , Corporate Disclosure Statement #5 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Declaration #3 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 served on October 6, 2022. (Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (lh) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff Michele Saywell. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 8/24/2022 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh) |
| Filing 5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of Collin D. Cook re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Declaration #3 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Audrey Mojica re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.. (Cook, Collin) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 22TRCV00735 Receipt No: ACACDC-34110476 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.. (Attorney Collin D Cook added to party Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.(pty:dft))(Cook, Collin) |
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.
