Sam Benford v. Carlos M. Quezada et al
Sam Benford |
Carlos M. Quezada doing business as The Barkley Restaurant & Bar, Rumambi LLC, Carlos M. Quezada doing business as The Barkley Restaurant and Bar and Does 1 to 10 |
2:2023cv09574 |
November 13, 2023 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Josephine L Staton |
Karen L Stevenson |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sam Benford, upon Defendant Rumambi LLC served on 12/11/2023, answer due 1/2/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon JEFFREY S. HAMAMOTO, AS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity and by also mailing a copy (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sam Benford, upon Defendant Carlos M. Quezada served on 12/20/2023, answer due 1/10/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CARLOS M. QUEZADA D/B/A THE BARKLEY RESTAURANT & BAR, defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 13 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction and Dismissing State-Law Claims Without Prejudice by Judge Josephine L. Staton: The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims in this action, and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing in state court. See document for further information. (jp) |
Filing 12 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Sam Benfordto Order to Show Cause, #9 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
Filing 11 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (jp) |
Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton. PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. (jp) |
Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Carlos M. Quezada, Rumambi LLC. (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 Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (et) |
Filing 9 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re Supplemental Jurisdiction by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims. (See document for further information). (jp) |
Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 Sam Benford. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Sam Benford. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36393414 - Fee: $402. (Attorney Jason J. Kim added to party Sam Benford(pty:pla))(Kim, Jason) |
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.