Mark Darren Walker v. City of Los Angeles et al
| Mark D. Walker |
| City of Los Angeles, Lt. Joseph Hernandez, Capt. Orlando Chandler and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2023cv03113 |
| April 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
| Pedro V Castillo |
| Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Medical Malpractice |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Orlando Chandler, City of Los Angeles, Joseph Hernandez, identifying City of Los Angeles. (Levine, Brian) |
Filing 16
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TAKING MOTION OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. #10 ) UNDER SUBMISSION by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The court finds that the Motion To Dismiss currently scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2023, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. The court expects the parties to continue litigating this action diligently, while awaiting the court's ruling on this motion. No appearances are necessary. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 15 REPLY in support of motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Orlando Chandler, City of Los Angeles, Joseph Hernandez. (Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 14 OPPOSITION In Opposition to re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case #10 filed by Plaintiff Mark D. Walker. (Falkenstein, Matthew) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Scheduling Conference set for 7/14/2023 at 01:00 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
|
Filing 12
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
| Filing 11 DECLARATION of Orlando Chandler In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case #10 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Defendant Orlando Chandler ISO Motion to Dismiss)(Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2023 at 01:30 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss) (Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 9 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to City of Los Angeles answer now due 5/19/2023; Orlando Chandler answer now due 5/19/2023; Joseph Hernandez answer now due 5/19/2023, filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.(Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Western Division. Case has been assigned to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Pedro V. Castillo. New Case Number 2:23-cv-03113-FLA (PVCx). (et) |
| FILING FEE PAID for new civil case. Receipt No. ACACDC-35186972 for $402 filing fee. (Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, re Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #3 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, #1 served on 4/21/2023. (Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Levine, Brian) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: A case-initiating document was submitted without payment of the full filing fee. Within two business days of this notice, counsel must pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis;otherwise, the docket for this case number will be closed and no further filings will be permitted under this case number. The filing fee may be paid online by docketing the event Pay Filing Fee. (et) |
| CONFORMED E-FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Orlando Chandler, City of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Joseph Hernandez.Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Mark D. Walker. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 02/22/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL AS ATTACHMENT NO. 3 #1 ]. (et) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court for County of Los Angeles, case number 23stcv03955 Fee Exemption in accordance with statute, filed by Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Brian Levine, #2 Summons, #3 Complaint, #4 Civil Case Cover Sheet, #5 Civil Case Addendum, #6 Notice of Judicial Assignment, #7 Notice of Case Management Conference, #8 Voluntary Efficient Stipulations, #9 Stipulation - Early Organizational Meetings, #10 Stipulation - Discovery Resolution, #11 Informal Discovery Conference, #12 Stipulation and Order - Motions in Limine, #13 Order Pursuant to CPP Extending Time to Respond) (Attorney Brian Levine added to party CITY OF LOS ANGELES(pty:dft))(Levine, Brian) (Receipt No. ACACDC-35186972-Fee $ 402.00) Modified on 4/25/2023 (et). |
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.
