Antonio Fernandez v. Avanquest North America LLC et al
| Antonio Fernandez |
| Avanquest North America LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive |
| Avanquest Software SAS |
| 2:2024cv08620 |
| October 7, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Monica Ramirez Almadani |
| Margo A Rocconi |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Fraud |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 5, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles filed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez. Motion set for hearing on 1/27/2025 at 01:30 PM before Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Proof of Service) (Dostart, Zachariah) |
Filing 13
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. Scheduling Conference set for 1/27/2025 at 01:30 p.m. Counsel must email the text-fillable Worksheet to Chambers at MRA_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov along with the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. *See Order for further details.* (gga)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani: granting #10 Non-Resident Attorney Daniel A. Rohner APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Avanquest Software SAS, designating Jessica N. Wahl as local counsel. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY (sbou)
|
|
Filing 11
TEXT ENTRY (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. The Application of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel A. Rohner to Appear Pro Hace Vice #7 is DENIED as moot. A Corrected Application #10 has been filed. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (gga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 10 Corrected APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel A. Rohner to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Intervenor Defendant Avanquest Software SAS (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Previously Paid on 10/1/2024, Receipt No. ACACDC-38383983) filed by Intervenor-Defendant Avanquest Software SAS. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order, #2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing) (Webb, Tammy) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel A. Rohner to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Intervenor Defendant Avanquest Software SAS (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-38383983) #7 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 83-2.1.3.4 Local counsel does not maintain an office within the District for the practice of law, in which the attorney is physically present on a regular basis to conduct business. (sbou) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 23-05. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Consuelo B. Marshall to Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:24-cv-08620 MRA(MARx). (rn)
|
| Filing 7 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel A. Rohner to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Intervenor Defendant Avanquest Software SAS (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-38383983) filed by Intervenor-Defendant Avanquest Software SAS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Attorney Certificate of Good Standing, #2 Proposed Order G-64 Order) (Webb, Tammy) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Daniel E. Rohner. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh) |
| Filing 5 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. (lh) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants Avanquest North America LLC, Does, filed by Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez. (FILED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 11/16/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh) |
| Filing 3 Defendant Avanquest's Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Intervenor Defendant Avanquest Software SAS, identifying Claranova, SE. (Webb, Tammy) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Intervenor Defendant Avanquest Software SAS. (Webb, Tammy) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 23stcv28134 Receipt No: BCACDC-38355230 - Fee: $405, filed by Intervenor-Defendant Avanquest Software SAS. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Tammy Webb, #2 Exhibit A Complaint, #3 Exhibit B Answer of Avanquest North America, #4 Exhibit C Stipulation and Complaint in Intervention, #5 Declaration of Mathieu Laforge) (Attorney Tammy B Webb added to party Avanquest Software SAS(pty:intvd))(Webb, Tammy) |
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.
