Pieter Vandenberg v. County of Los Angeles
| Pieter Vandenberg |
| COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and County of Los Angeles |
| 5:2018cv01625 |
| August 2, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Kenly Kiya Kato |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jimmy Prieto, Deputy Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Tate, Ace) |
| Filing 15 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Jaime Ortega for Consent to be Included as Individual Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg (Tate, Ace) |
| Filing 14 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to County of Los Angeles answer now due 10/4/2018, filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(Attorney Jennifer Mira Hashmall added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Hashmall, Jennifer) |
| Filing 13 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Salvador Diaz for Consent to be Included as Individual Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg (Tate, Ace) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg. Related Case(s): 2:18-cv-06861-JAK-AS (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg, upon Defendant County of Los Angeles served on 8/13/2018, answer due 9/4/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jimmy Prieto, Deputy Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 10 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Robert Manning Consent to be Included as an Individual Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 9 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Pieter Vandenberg for Consent to be Included as Individual Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg (Mastagni, David) |
Filing 8
STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer's Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (dp)
|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant County of Los Angeles. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg. (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg, (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg. (Mastagni, David) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22191325 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Pieter Vandenberg. (Attorney David Emilio Mastagni added to party Pieter Vandenberg(pty:pla))(Mastagni, 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.
