Julie Tanser v. Verizon
Plaintiff: Julie Tanser
Defendant: Verizon
Case Number: 2:2023cv02124
Filed: March 21, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Stanley Blumenfeld
Referring Judge: Charles F Eick
2 Judge: Dale S Fischer
3 Judge: Steve Kim
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 26, 2023 Filing 15 Mail Returned addressed to Julie Tanser re Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) - optional html form #6 (rolm)
April 14, 2023 Filing 14 Mail Returned Undeliverable addressed to Julie Tanser re Standing Order #8 . (jp)
March 30, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Denying #2 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis because the filer has the ability to pay. The District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. As explained in the attached statement, because it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured byamendment, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ( MD JS-6, Case Terminated. ) (gk)
March 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT UPON RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment Discovery pursuant to General Order 05-07. Case randomly reassigned from Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:23-cv-02124 SB(SKx). (rn)
March 23, 2023 Filing 11 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED ("PRO SE") LITIGANT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, i.e., without legal representation, you are nonetheless required to comply with Court orders, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. The Local Rules are available on this Court's website. There is a free "Pro Se Clinic" that can provide information and guidance about many aspects of civil litigation in this Court. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an on-line application to request services as follows: on-line applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270. Pro se litigants may submit documents for filing through the Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) instead of mailing or bringing documents to the Clerk's Office. Only internet access and an e-mail address are required. To access EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court's website at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jgr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
March 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 CIVIL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (jgr)
March 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE due to self-recusal pursuant to General Order 21-01 by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case transferred from Judge Dale S. Fischer to the calendar of Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr for all further proceedings. Case number now reads as 2:23-cv-02124 SB(Ex). (rn)
March 22, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 8 STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (rfi)
March 22, 2023 Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap)
March 22, 2023 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap)
March 22, 2023 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (ghap)
March 21, 2023 Filing 4 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Julie Tanser. (ghap)
March 21, 2023 Filing 3 REQUEST to Waive Court Fees filed by plaintiff Julie Tanser. (ghap)
March 21, 2023 Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Julie Tanser. (ghap)
March 21, 2023 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendant Verizon. Case assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F Eick., filed by plaintiff Julie Tanser. (Attachments: #1 CV-71) (ghap)

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 this case: Julie Tanser v. Verizon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Julie Tanser
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Verizon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?