Joyce Ann Sessom v. Ford Motor Company et al
| Joyce Ann Sessom |
| Ford Motor Company, Norm Reeves Ford Superstore and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2024cv03434 |
| April 25, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael R Wilner |
| George H Wu |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Elizabeth A LaRocque counsel for Plaintiff Joyce Ann Sessom. Adding Elizabeth LaRocque as counsel of record for Plaintiffs JOYCE ANN SESSOM for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff JOYCE ANN SESSOM. (Attorney Elizabeth A LaRocque added to party Joyce Ann Sessom(pty:pla))(LaRocque, Elizabeth) |
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge George H Wu. The Court sets a Scheduling Conference for June 10, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information, confer on a discovery plan, and report to the Court, as required by F.R.C.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Trial counsel are ordered to be present. A Joint 26(f) Report shall be filed with the Court no later than June 3, 2024. See Local Rule 26-1. (lom)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING ORDER RE FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCES FOR CIVIL JURY TRIALS by Judge George H Wu. (lom)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, (Gahan, Andrew) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge George H. Wu and Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Ford Motor Company, Norm Reeves Ford Superstore. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Joyce Ann Sessom. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 10/20/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1) (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), filed by Defendants Ford Motor Company, Norm Reeves Ford Superstore. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 11/22/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT 3)(ghap) |
| NON CONFORM COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Ford Motor Company, Norm Reeves Ford Superstore amending Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by plaintiff Joyce Ann Sessom. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT 4)(ghap) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Gahan, Andrew) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles, case number 23LBCV02001 Receipt No: ACACDC-37360636 - Fee: $405, filed by defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of A. Gahan, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6) (Attorney Andrew Shaun Gahan added to party Ford Motor Company(pty:dft))(Gahan, Andrew) |
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.
