James Rutherford v. Paco s Tacos, et al
| James Rutherford |
| Does 1-10, inclusive, Paco s Tacos, Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosough, Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosoughi |
| Manning Law APC, Joseph R. Manning, Jr., Craig G Cote and Michael J Manning |
| 5:2018cv02037 |
| September 24, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Sheri Pym |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: In light of Dkt. Nos. #19 and #20 , the parties have apparently settled their claims and have agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The Court therefore ORDERS that Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendants' Counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each side is to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. Plaintiff's counsel has appeared numerous times in the Central District, representing this plaintiff and others in ADA disability access cases, among other matters. Given the history of this case as reflected on the docket, Plaintiff's counsel, as an officer of the Court, should have filed a stipulation of dismissal from all parties or some other joint filing to effectuate a dismissal or inform the Court of the status of the case. Going forward, the Court expects better from counsel, especially when the other side involves parties appearing pro se. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: N/A. (gk)
|
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Settlement; Withdrawal of Defendants' Counterclaim; and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Defendants Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosoughi. (gk) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to Paco s Tacos. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr: ORDER REOPENING CASE. On November 30, 2018, the Court received in the mail an Answer from pro se plaintiffs Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosoughi #17 . Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Court hereby ORDERS that this case be reopened. If the parties have settled the case, they should file the appropriate papers as soon as possible, but no later than January 8, 2019. Otherwise, the case will go forward. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Case reopened. MD JS-5. (twdb)
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 17 ANSWER to Complaint #1 ; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; and COUNTERCLAIM against James Rutherford, Joseph R. Manning, Jr., Michael J. Manning, Craig G. Cote, and Manning Law APC; with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosoughi. (gk) |
|
Filing 15
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr., ORDERING Answer to Complaint submitted by Defendant Paco's Tacos received on 11/2/2018 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: No proof of service, F.R.Civ.P. 5. Only individuals may represent themselves pro se, L.R. 83-2.2.2. No organization or entity of any other kind (including partnerships, limited liability partnerships) may appear in any action unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court under L.R. 83-2.1. (gk)
|
| Filing 14 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Paco s Tacos answer now due 11/30/2018, filed by Attorney Paco s Tacos.(Attorney Larry Scott Karlin added to party Paco s Tacos(pty:dft))(Karlin, Larry) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosough served on 10/20/2018, answer due 11/13/2018. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Paco s Tacos served on 10/12/2018, answer due 11/2/2018. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 11
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb)
|
| Filing 10 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (cb) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant Kamaleddin Abdolrahimi and Mary Vosough. (esa) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant Paco s Tacos. (esa) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (esa) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22471092 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Attorney Joseph Richard Manning, Jr added to party James Rutherford(pty:pla))(Manning, Joseph) |
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.
