Krystal Woolsey v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company et al
| Krystal Woolsey |
| Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company and Does 1 to 50 inclusive |
| 2:2024cv01667 |
| February 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
| Maria A Audero |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Insurance Contract |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 06/05/2025. (tf)
|
| Filing 15 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The court, on its own motion, VACATES the April 26, 2024 scheduling conference. No appearance necessary.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 14
ORDER RE: SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES, TRIAL REQUIREMENTS, AND CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/11/2025 01:00 PM ; Jury Trial set for 7/29/2025 08:30 AM; Motion in Limine set for hearing on 7/11/2025 at 01:00 PM (SEE DOCUMENT FOR ALL SPECIFIED DEADLINES). (lc)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to the courts Order. Responses shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual sufficiency of Defendant's demonstration of jurisdiction. As Defendant is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant's failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in remand of the action without further notice. (lc)
|
| Filing 12 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 7 Days, filed by Plaintiff Krystal Woolsey.. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Schedule of Pretrial Dates Worksheet)(Goldsman, Gene) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Scheduling Conference set for 4/26/2024 at 01:00 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
|
Filing 10
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJDAP case from Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judges 2:24-cv-01667-FLA (KSx). (et) |
| Filing 8 DECLINED STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. (Derringer, Jordan) |
| Filing 7 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge (Goldsman, Gene) |
| Filing 6 REMINDER NOTICE re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. Each party must file form CV-11C within the consent deadlines pursuant to L.R. 73-2. Additionally, the parties are directed to L.R. 73-2.2 Proof of Service. In any case in which only a magistrate judge is initially assigned, plaintiff must file a proof of service within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint as to each defendant. (hr) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (sh) |
| NON-CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Does. filed by Plaintiff Krystal Woolsey.[STATE COURT FILE DATE NOT INDICATED SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT A TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ] (sh) |
| NON-CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. [STATE COURT FILE DATE NOT INDICATED SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBIT B TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ](sh) |
| Filing 4 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company.. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Derringer, Jordan) |
| Filing 3 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, identifying The Allstate Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Derringer, Jordan) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Derringer, Jordan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2024-01376085-CU-BC-CJC Receipt No: ACACDC-37006504 - Fee: $405, filed by Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint and Statement of Damages, #2 Exhibit B - Answer, #3 Exhibit C - Other State Court Filings, #4 Declaration of Jordan Derringer, #5 Request for Judicial Notice, #6 Proof of Service) (Attorney Jordan Seth Derringer added to party Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company(pty:dft))(Derringer, Jordan) |
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.
