Misael Romero v. Jose Alberto Garcia et al
| Misael Romero |
| Does 1-10, inclusive, Show Biz Barber Shop and Jose Alberto Garcia |
| 5:2018cv02033 |
| September 24, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Jose Alberto Garcia, Show Biz Barber Shop.(Bernheim, Christina) |
| Filing 11 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Show Biz Barber Shop answer now due 11/21/2018; Jose Alberto Garcia answer now due 11/21/2018, filed by Defendant Show Biz Barber Shop; Jose Alberto Garcia.(Attorney Christina Marie Bernheim added to party Jose Alberto Garcia(pty:dft), Attorney Christina Marie Bernheim added to party Show Biz Barber Shop(pty:dft))(Bernheim, Christina) |
Filing 10
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiffs counsel, to show cause in writing no later than October 26, 2018, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (FRCivP 41). The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiffs is due. (iv)
|
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Misael Romero, upon Defendant Show Biz Barber Shop served on 9/27/2018, answer due 10/18/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Show Biz Barber Shop by Beeni Blaken, Incharge in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Misael Romero, upon Defendant Jose Alberto Garcia served on 10/2/2018, answer due 10/23/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jose Alberto Garcia by Mo Redd in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Jose Alberto Garcia, Show Biz Barber Shop. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Misael Romero. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Misael Romero, (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Misael Romero. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22466970 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Misael Romero. (Attorney Ross Cornell added to party Misael Romero(pty:pla))(Cornell, Ross) |
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.
