Cheryl S. Scarlett v. Ford Motor Company et al
| Cheryl S. Scarlett |
| Ford Motor Company, Fiesta Ford, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 5:2017cv02202 |
| October 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F Eick |
| Stephen V Wilson |
| Contract: Other |
| 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 16, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 30
ORDER ON STIPULATION VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by Judge Stephen V. Wilson, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case #29 . (mrgo)
|
| Filing 29 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 28
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER MOVING CASE TO INACTIVE CALENDAR PENDING SETTLEMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson re: Response #27 : The Court, having received the Response by defendants to Courts Order to Show Cause filed January 30, 2018, advising that settlement of settlement. The Court vacates all previously set dates. Please refer to the Court's order for additional information. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (cr)
|
| Filing 27 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Fiesta Ford, Inc., Ford Motor Company To Order To Show Cause Re Dismissal (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Hugret, Spencer) |
|
Filing 26
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing no later than February 6, 2018 why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. (cr)
|
|
Filing 25
ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson re: Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less) #21 . Defendant Ford shall file its response to plaintiff's complaint by 1/19/2018. (mrgo)
|
|
Filing 24
ORDER by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: granting #23 Request to Substitute Attorney. Spencer P. Hugret is substituted in place of Joseph Ashley Gibbs for defendant Fiesta Ford, Inc. Attorney Joseph Ashley Gibbs terminated. (mrgo)
|
| Filing 23 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Spencer P. Hugret in place of attorney Joseph A. Gibbs filed by Defendant Fiesta Ford, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Hugret, Spencer) |
| Filing 22 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Spencer Peter Hugret on behalf of Defendant Ford Motor Company (Hugret, Spencer) |
| Filing 21 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Ford Motor Company answer now due 1/19/2018, filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Hugret, Spencer) |
|
Filing 20
ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FIESTA FORD, INC. TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT #19 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Fiesta Ford, Inc. shall have an additional forty-five (45) day extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaint, thereby making their responsive pleading due January 3, 2018. (lom)
|
| Filing 19 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Fiesta Ford, Inc. answer now due 1/3/2018, filed by Defendant Fiesta Ford, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Joseph Ashley Gibbs added to party Fiesta Ford, Inc.(pty:dft))(Gibbs, Joseph) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply #17 . The following error(s) was/were found: See L.R. 8-3 Response to Initial Complaint. See example. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lom) |
| Filing 17 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Defendant Fiesta Ford, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Attorney Spencer Peter Hugret added to party Fiesta Ford, Inc.(pty:dft))(Hugret, Spencer) |
| Filing 16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett, upon Defendant Fiesta Ford, Inc. served on 11/13/2017, answer due 12/4/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Linda Doe-Office Manager in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett, upon Defendant Ford Motor Company served on 10/31/2017, answer due 11/21/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gabriela Sanchez - person Authorized to accept in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 14 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company.(Attorney Spencer Peter Hugret added to party Ford Motor Company(pty:dft))(Hugret, Spencer) |
|
Filing 13
NEW CASE ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (cr)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 16-05. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to Judge Stephen V. Wilson for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 5:17-cv-02202 SVW(Ex). (rn)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error, the case number on the Notice of Assignment to United States Judges (CV-18) #8 was incorrect. The corrected Notice of Assignment is attached as Attachment 1. (Attachments: #1 Corrected CV18) (jtil) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Fiesta Ford, Inc., and Ford Motor Company. (jtil) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Hallen David Rosner counsel for Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. Adding Hallen David Rosner as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. (Attorney Hallen David Rosner added to party Cheryl S. Scarlett(pty:pla))(Rosner, Hallen) |
| Filing 6 STATEMENT of Damages filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 5 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett, (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 4 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Cheryl S. Scarlett Affidavit of Venue filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-20730161 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Cheryl S. Scarlett. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Attorney Jeffrey L Le Pere added to party Cheryl S. Scarlett(pty:pla))(Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
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.
