Apex Prospect Investment, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
| Apex Prospect Investment, LLC |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Does 1 to 10 inclusive |
| 2:2022cv09105 |
| December 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stanley Blumenfeld |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: In light of the Court's order granting the parties' stipulation to extend time to answer the Complaint, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for hearing on January 20, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. is hereby CONTINUED to February 24, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6C.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pk) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT #11 by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. Having reviewed the Stipulation of Plaintiff Apex Prospect Investment, LLC and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to further extend time to respond to initial complaint, the Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation. The deadline for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to respond to the Complaint, by answer, motion or otherwise, shall be extended to and including February 17, 2023. There shall be no further continuances. The parties are reminded that if this matter does not settle, they will be given a trial date that is based on the original response date, and they are ordered to include this sentence in their joint status report for the mandatory scheduling conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. (rolm)
|
| Filing 13 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A... (Kwak, Alice) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Document RE: Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less) #11 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Stipulations > Extending Time to Answer (More than 30 days). The filer used the event, Stipulations > Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less), for docketing this filing. This filing, together with the prior stipulation, seeks a cumulative extension of time greater than 30 days. See Local Rule 8-3. 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. (gk) |
| Filing 11 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kwak, Alice) |
| Filing 10 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. answer now due 1/20/2023, re Complaint - (Discovery) filed by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A..(Kwak, Alice) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court sets an in-person Mandatory Scheduling Conference set for hearing on January 20, 2023 at 8:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. The parties shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report by January 10, 2023. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (jgr)
|
|
Filing 8
CIVIL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (jgr)
|
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 to 10, Inclusive, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed by Plaintiff Apex Prospect Investment, LLC. Filed in State Court on 11/14/2022 Submitted with Attachment 1 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Executed by Plaintiff Apex Prospect Investment, LLC, upon Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. served on 11/15/2022, answer due 12/6/2022. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jessie Gastelum CT Corporation Agent for Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 to 10, Inclusive, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed by Plaintiff Apex Prospect Investment, LLC. Filed in State Court on 12/1/2022 Submitted with Attachment 1 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Judicial Notice filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in Support of re: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Articles of Organization, #2 Exhibit 2 - Statement of Information)(Kwak, Alice) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., identifying JPMorgan Chase & Co. and The Vanguard Group, Inc.. (Kwak, Alice) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Kwak, Alice) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 22VECV01982 Receipt No: ACACDC-34486666 - Fee: $402, filed by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court Documents) (Attorney Alice Kwak added to party JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.(pty:dft))(Kwak, Alice) |
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.
