Carrie L. Stanford-Franz v. UHG I, LLC et al
| Carrie L. Stanford-Franz |
| UHG I, LLC, Associated Credit Services, Inc., Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Christopher D Mandarich, Teona Pipia, Hunter Masin and Maxwell Hamilton |
| 2:2024cv03865 |
| May 6, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stanley Blumenfeld |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Request for Clerk to Issue Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz. (Stanford-Franz, Carrie) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz, upon Defendant UHG I, LLC served on 5/16/2024, answer due 6/6/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Diana Ruiz-Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity (Stanford-Franz, Carrie) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz, upon Defendant Persolve Legal Group, LLP served on 5/15/2024, answer due 6/5/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Agent for Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity (Stanford-Franz, Carrie) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz, upon Defendant Associated Credit Services, Inc. served on 5/14/2024, answer due 6/4/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon C/O CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity (Stanford-Franz, Carrie) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), #1 as to Defendants Associated Credit Services, Inc., Maxwell Hamilton, Christopher D Mandarich, Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Hunter Masin, Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Teona Pipia, UHG I, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Summons Issued- UHG I, LLC, #2 Summons Issued- Christopher D. Mandarich, #3 Summons Issued- Teona Pipia, #4 Summons Issued- Maxwell Hamilton, #5 Summons Issued- Associated Credit Services, #6 Summons Issued- Hunter Masin, #7 Summons Issued- Mandarich Law Group, LLP)(rolm) |
Filing 11
ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr: granting #4 APPLICATION for Pro Se Electronic Filing. The applicant must register to use the Courts CM/ECF System within five (5) days of being served with this order. Registration information is available at the Pro Se Litigant E-Filing web page located on the Courts website. Upon registering, the applicant will receive a CM/ECF login and password that will allow him/her to file non-sealed documents electronically in this case only. Any documents being submitted under seal must be manually filed with the Clerk. (rolm)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED (PRO SE) LITIGANT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se (i.e., without legal representation), you are nonetheless required to comply with Court orders, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.2.3. The Local Rules are available on this Courts website. There is a free "Pro Se Clinic" that can provide information and guidance about many aspects of civil litigation in this Court. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an online application to request services as follows: online applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270. Pro se litigants may submit documents for filing through the Court's Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) instead of mailing or bringing documents to the Clerk's Office. Only internet access and an email address are required. To access EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court's website at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jgr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 8
Civil standing order upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (jgr)
|
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr and Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (car) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION for Pro Se Litigant to electronically file documents in a specific case filed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz. (car) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint - (Discovery), #1 filed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz. (Attachments: #1 Summons 2, #2 Summons 3, #3 Summons 4, #4 Summons 5, #5 Summons 6, #6 Summons 7, #7 Summons 8)(car) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz (car) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants. Case assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.(Filing fee $ 405 PAID), filed by Plaintiff Carrie L. Stanford-Franz. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (car) |
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.
