Deondre Raglin v. Ramiro Guzman
| Deondre Raglin |
| Ramiro Guzman doing business as Pacific Tire - North Long Beach and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2024cv01410 |
| February 21, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| 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 April 19, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Deondre Raglin. (Kim, Jason) |
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff(s) is ordered to show cause in writing no later than May 10, 2024 why this action should not bedismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court will consider the filing of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Plaintiff's filing of a noticed motion for entry of default judgment for the defendant. Failure to respond to the Court's Order may result in the dismissal of the action. (lc)
|
| Filing 17 DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to RAMIRO GUZMAN D/B/A PACIFIC TIRE - NORTH LONG BEACH (lc) |
| Filing 16 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against defendant Ramiro Guzman filed by plaintiff Deondre Raglin. (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Deondre Raglin, upon Defendant Ramiro Guzman served on 3/11/2024, answer due 4/1/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Ramiro Guzman D/B/A Pacific Tire - North Long Beach, defendant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Kim, Jason) |
| Filing 14 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. The Court therefore DISMISSES these claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(4). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Deondre Raglinto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, #12 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Jason) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing No Later Than Two Weeks from 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 to 28 USC 1367 (c). (lc)
|
|
Filing 11
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 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 submit documents electronically to the Clerks 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 Defendant Ramiro Guzman. (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 Alicia G. Rosenberg. (lh) |
| 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-36950737 - Fee: $405. (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.
