Adom Ratner-Stauber v. City of Los Angeles et al
Adom Ratner-Stauber |
Los Angeles Police Department and City of Los Angeles |
2:2024cv07043 |
August 20, 2024 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Stephanie S Christensen |
Josephine L Staton |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 16 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Initial Complaint (Doc. #14 ) by Judge Josephine L. Staton: The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' prior motion to dismiss (Doc. 14.) The hearing scheduled for 11/1/2024, is VACATED. (jp) |
Filing 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner-Stauber(Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 11/1/2024 at 10:30 AM before Judge Josephine L. Staton. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss) (Attorney Molly C Stephens added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Molly C Stephens added to party Los Angeles Police Department(pty:dft)) (Stephens, Molly) |
Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner-Stauber, upon Defendant Los Angeles Police Department served on 8/26/2024, answer due 9/16/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner-Stauber, upon Defendant City of Los Angeles served on 8/26/2024, answer due 9/16/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon City Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 11 INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Josephine L. Staton. (cr) |
Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Los Angeles Police Department. (ghap) |
Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant City of Los Angeles. (ghap) |
Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen. (ghap) |
Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner Stauber. (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner Stauber. (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner Stauber, identifying Adom Ratner-Stauber Northeast Valley, LP Ratner Trust MIP, LLC Idarose Corp. Lorne Joint Venture Montague Joint Venture VLS Truman LLC City of Los Angeles Los Angeles Police Department. (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner Stauber. (Yerushalmi, David) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-38057080 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff Adom Ratner Stauber. (Attorney David E Yerushalmi added to party Adom Ratner Stauber(pty:pla))(Yerushalmi, David) |
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.