Deondre Raglin v. Starbucks Corporation et al
| Deondre Raglin |
| Starbucks Corporation, Elm Properties Group, LLC and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2023cv10064 |
| November 29, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Patricia Donahue |
| Otis D Wright |
| 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 November 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Elm Properties Group, LLC, Starbucks Corporation. (et) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Deondre Raglin. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 Deondre Raglin. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Deondre Raglin. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36487501 - Fee: $402. (Attorney Jason J. Kim added to party Deondre Raglin(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.
