Bertram LLP v. Clifford Katab et al
| Bertram LLP |
| Clifford Katab and Does 1-10, inclusive |
| 2:2023cv05811 |
| July 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Otis D Wright |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [FRCP 16, 26(f)]; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE [FRCP 26(f)] ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Scheduling Conference set for November 13, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. (lom)
|
| Filing 14 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 with JURY DEMAND , COUNTERCLAIM against Bertram LLP filed by Defendant Clifford Katab.(Mann, Lloyd) |
| Filing 13 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Clifford Katab, identifying Clifford Katab, Bertram, LLP, and Connie N. Bertram. (Mann, Lloyd) |
| Filing 12 COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, the Minute Order #11 , was issued prematurely and is hereby STRICKEN. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sce) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff(s) is ordered to show cause in writing no later than August 21, 2023 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will consider the filing of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date:Plaintiff's request for entry of default as to the defendant, or Answer by the defendant(s). In the event both documents are filed before the above date, the answer will take precedence. Failure to respond to the Court's Order may result in the dismissal of the action. (lc) Modified on 8/18/2023 (lc).
|
| Filing 10 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Clifford Katab answer now due 8/29/2023, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by defendant Clifford Katab.(Attorney Lloyd S Mann added to party Clifford Katab(pty:dft))(Mann, Lloyd) |
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bertram LLP, upon Defendant Clifford Katab served on 7/25/2023, answer due 8/15/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Clifford Katab in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Kohn, Robert) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Clifford Katab. (et) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Bertram LLP. (Kohn, Robert) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Bertram LLP, identifying Connie N. Bertram. (Kohn, Robert) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Bertram LLP. (Kohn, Robert) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-35691847 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Bertram LLP. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Substitution of Attorney, #2 Exhibit 2 - Statement of 3-31-2023, #3 Exhibit 3 - Statement of 7-13-2023, #4 Exhibit 4 - Notice of Right to Arbitrate) (Attorney Robert E. Kohn added to party Bertram LLP(pty:pla))(Kohn, Robert) |
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.
