Maria Cisneros et al v. Aramark Facility Services, LLC et al
| Maria Cisneros, Marta Chavez and Victor Garcia |
| Aramark Facility Services, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive |
| 2:2023cv08365 |
| October 4, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Sherilyn Peace Garnett |
| Margo A Rocconi |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEFENDANTS Maria Cisneros, Victor Garcia, Marta Chavez amending Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Plaintiffs Maria Cisneros, Victor Garcia, Marta Chavez(Solouki, Shoham) |
Filing 13
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT #12 by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC's deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint shall be 30 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (iv)
|
| Filing 12 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Aramark Facility Services, LLC answer now due 12/30/2023, filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Fahy, Brian) |
|
Filing 11
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. (pg)
|
| Filing 10 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett and Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. (car) |
| Filing 7 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC.(Fahy, Brian) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiffs Maria Cisneros, Victor Garcia, Marta Chavez. Filed in State Court on 8/30/2023 Submitted with Attachment 1 Exhibit A to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC, re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Request for Judicial Notice #5 , Corporate Disclosure Statement #3 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #4 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 served on 10/4/23. (Fahy, Brian) |
| Filing 5 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Support of Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC. (Fahy, Brian) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC, identifying Plaintiff Maria Cisneros, Plaintiff Marta Chavez, Plaintiff Victor Garcia, Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Aramark. (Fahy, Brian) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC identifying Aramark as Corporate Parent. (Fahy, Brian) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC. (Fahy, Brian) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 23STCV21069 Receipt No: ACACDC-36164195 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Aramark Facility Services, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Other Case-Initiating Documents, #3 Declaration of Amy Golembo, #4 Declaration of Roxanne Tucker) (Attorney Brian D. Fahy added to party Aramark Facility Services, LLC(pty:dft))(Fahy, Brian) |
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.
