Kenneth Davidson v. Button Mash, LLC et al
| Kenneth Davidson |
| Button Mash, LLC, Sunlas Building, LLC and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2023cv10019 |
| November 28, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Hernan D Vera |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Hernan D. Vera. Having considered Plaintiff's response, Dkt. No. #11 , the Court finds that exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not warranted. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and related state law claims. The Court therefore dismisses these claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(4). (lom)
|
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson, upon Defendant Sunlas Building, LLC served on 12/28/2023, answer due 1/18/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Antranik Sinanian - Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson, upon Defendant Button Mash, LLC served on 12/28/2023, answer due 1/18/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gerri Weiner - Agent for Service of Process in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Davidsonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, #10 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Hernan D. Vera. In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause in ten (10) days. (lom)
|
|
Filing 9
CIVIL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Hernan D. Vera. (cr)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Button Mash, LLC, Sunlas Building, LLC. (lh) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Hernan D. Vera and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 Kenneth Davidson. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36478511 - Fee: $402. (Attorney Jason J. Kim added to party Kenneth Davidson(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.
