Sam Benford v. RX Consultants Group, Inc. et al
| Sam Benford |
| RX Consultants Group, Inc., LY Real Estate Holding, LLC and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2024cv00460 |
| January 18, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R Wilner |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to LY Real Estate Holding, LLC answer now due 3/25/2024; RX Consultants Group, Inc. answer now due 3/25/2024, filed by defendant LY Real Estate Holding, LLC; RX Consultants Group, Inc..(Attorney Laurie M Cortez added to party LY Real Estate Holding, LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Laurie M Cortez added to party RX Consultants Group, Inc.(pty:dft))(Cortez, Laurie) |
| Filing 16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sam Benford, upon Defendant LY Real Estate Holding, LLC served on 2/2/2024, answer due 2/23/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon JEAN LY, AS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sam Benford, upon Defendant RX Consultants Group, Inc. served on 2/2/2024, answer due 2/23/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon JEAN LY, AS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel to the Court's Order to Show Cause #13 . The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any other construction-related accessibility claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc) Modified on 2/6/2024 (lc).
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Sam Benfordto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, #11 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: ORDER REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The Court finds that there is good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning basic case prosecution for cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC ENUMERATED REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES THEREIN). The failure to comply with this Order in a particular case will result in a sanction of $300.00 payable to the clerk of the court within two weeks of Plaintiff being given notice of noncompliance and dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Court finds these sanctions sufficient and necessary to deter violations of the Order and to achieve timely prosecution of these cases without unnecessary intervention by the Court. (lc)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than two weeks from the date of this Order, why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (lc)
|
| Filing 10 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY- No mandatory chambers copies required, EXCEPT FOR Motions for summary judgment and any other evidence-heavy motions. The Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) allows people without lawyers who have pending cases in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to submitdocuments electronically to the Clerk's Office The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. Please refer to Court's Website and Judge's procedures for information as applicable. (lc)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants LY Real Estate Holding, LLC, RX Consultants Group, Inc. (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 Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (lh) |
| 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-36748349 - Fee: $405. (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.
