David Lawrence McMahon v. Ur M Jaddou et al
David Lawrence McMahon |
Ur M Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, Alissa L. Emmel, Merrick Garland and E. Martin Estrada |
2:2023cv01654 |
March 6, 2023 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
John D Early |
Sherilyn Peace Garnett |
Other Immigration Actions |
28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 22 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon, upon Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas served on 4/13/2023, answer due 6/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. The Attorney Generals Office of the United States was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 21 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon, upon Defendant Merrick Garland served on 4/20/2023, answer due 6/20/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Ely Issa. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Ely Issa. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon, upon Defendant Alissa L. Emmel served on 4/20/2023, answer due 6/20/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. The Attorney Generals Office of the United States was NOT served. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Arif Baig. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon, upon Defendant E. Martin Estrada served on 3/10/2023, answer due 5/9/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Estrella Garcia, Civil Intake Clerk. The Attorney Generals Office of the United States was NOT served. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 18 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant E. Martin Estrada. (iv) |
Filing 17 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Ur M Jaddou. (iv) |
Filing 16 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Alissa L. Emmel. (iv) |
Filing 15 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Merrick Garland. (iv) |
Filing 14 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas. (iv) |
Filing 13 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. (pg) |
Filing 12 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 8 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request #4 . The following error(s) was found: Summons is not directed to the defendant(s). The defendants name must appear in the To:section of the summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (ghap) |
Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (ghap) |
Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon, identifying HY Manhattan Tower A-3 LLC. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Kutzner, Morgan) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34901307 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff David Lawrence McMahon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I) (Attorney Morgan Judith Kutzner added to party David Lawrence McMahon(pty:pla))(Kutzner, Morgan) |
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.