Jose Baylon et al v. Aramark Services, Inc.
| Jose Baylon and Christian Gutierrez |
| Does 1 to 100, inclusive |
| Aramark Services, Inc. |
| 2:2023cv04510 |
| June 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| Steve Kim |
| 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 December 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants amending Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Plaintiffs Jose Baylon, Christian Gutierrez(Cullen, Paul) |
Filing 26
ORDER ON STIPULATION TO GRANT LEAVE TO PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Percy Anderson. Having considered the Parties' stipulation to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint, the Court finds good cause for the same and hereby orders: 1. Plaintiffs may file their First Amended Complaint. 2. Defendant shall have twenty-one (21) days from the filing of the First Amended Complaint to respond. (See document for further details). re First STIPULATION for Leave to FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, #25 . (aco)
|
| Filing 25 First STIPULATION for Leave to FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiffs Jose Baylon, Christian Gutierrez. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - EXHIBIT A TO STIPULATION, i.e., PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, #2 Proposed Order)(Cullen, Paul) |
|
Filing 24
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS-COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Because the parties filed no stipulation, and the Court has not granted Plaintiffs leave to file the 1st AC, the filing of the 1st AC is not authorized by Rule 15(a). The Court therefore strikes the 1st AC (Docket No. #23 ) for failure to comply with Rule 15(a)(2). (See document for further details). (aco)
|
| Filing 23 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER ON 07/31/2023. SEE DOCKET NO. 24] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEFENDANTS All Defendants amending Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Plaintiffs Jose Baylon, Christian Gutierrez(Cullen, Paul) Modified on 8/1/2023 (aco). |
|
Filing 22
CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER [FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)] by Judge Percy Anderson. 1. Establishing a Discovery Cut-off Date of 3/11/24 2. Setting Motion Cut-off date of 3/18/24 3. Setting Final Pretrial Conference for 4/19/24, at 1:30 p.m. 4. Setting Jury Trial Date of 5/21/24, at 9:00 a.m. (See document for further details). (aco)
|
|
Filing 19
TEXT ONLY ENTRY ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: On the Courts own motion, Scheduling Conference currently set for hearing on July 24, 2023 is hereby VACATED. No appearances are necessary. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (gga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
|
Filing 21
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. Amended Pleadings due by 10/23/2023. Discovery cut-off 3/11/2024. Exhibit List due by 4/5/2024. Witness List due by 4/5/2024. Motions due by 3/18/2024. Motions in Limine to be filed by 4/19/2024. Status Report due by 4/5/2024. Last date to conduct settlement conference is 3/25/2024. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/19/2024 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. Jury Trial set for 5/21/2024 09:00 AM before Judge Percy Anderson. Motion set for hearing on 5/13/2024 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge Percy Anderson. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than March 25, 2024. The parties shall file a joint report no later than seven (7) days after the ADR proceeding regarding the progress of settlement discussions. (rolm)
|
|
Filing 18
PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court enters the following protective order: (See document for further details). (aco)
|
| Filing 17 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc... (Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 16 CONSENT TO PROCEED before United States Magistrate Judge by all parties pursuant to GO 18-11 is denied by Percy Anderson. This case shall remain assigned to the District Judge. (rolm) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Consent Form re Notice to Counsel Re: Consent to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge - optional html form #8 (Attachments: #1 Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge)(Meckley, Eric) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court hereby GRANTS the stipulation and ORDERS as follows: Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.'s deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended from July 13, 2023 to August 3, 2023. No further extensions. RE: Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer #13 . (aco)
|
| Filing 13 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to August 3, 2023 filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 12 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Aramark Services, Inc. answer now due 7/13/2023, filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc..(Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 11 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Aramark Services, Inc. answer now due 6/29/2023, re Complaint - (Discovery), filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc..(Meckley, Eric) |
|
Filing 10
STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (aco)
|
| Filing 9 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [FRCP 16, 26(f)] by Judge Percy Anderson. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for July 31, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (aco) |
| 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 Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (lh) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Aramark Services, Inc., Does. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiffs Jose Baylon, Christian Gutierrez. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 2/27/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Pendency of Other Actions or Proceedings filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.. (Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc., identifying Aramark Intermediate HoldCo.. (Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Movant Aramark Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Movant Aramark Services, Inc.. (Meckley, Eric) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles, case number 23STCV4307 Receipt No: ACACDC-35458837 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Aramark Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A to NTC of Removal, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B to NTC of Removal, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C to NTC of Removal, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D to NTC of Removal, #5 Exhibit Exhibit E to NTC of Removal, #6 Declaration Decl. of Amy Golembo ISO NTC of Removal, #7 Declaration Decl. of Roxanne Tucker ISO NTC of Removal) (Attorney Eric Meckley added to party Aramark Services, Inc.(pty:bkmov))(Meckley, Eric) |
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.
