Anna Vela v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al
| Anna Vela |
| Does 1-50 inclusive, Walmart Inc. and Wal Mart Stores Inc. |
| 5:2018cv02218 |
| October 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:ANSWER within the Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was/were found: Upon review of the docket, it was found filer created another defendant as "Walmart Inc. Erroneously sued as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Instead of linking itself to the named defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc., an Arkansas corporation. 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. (lc) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Anna Vela, (Attorney Christopher Paul Brandes added to party Anna Vela(pty:pla))(Brandes, Christopher) |
| Filing 9 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Plaintiff Anna Vela.. (Brandes, Christopher) |
| Filing 8 DECLARATION of Andrew K. Haeffele re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Walmart Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Eastern Division Removal Case. This case was initially assigned to District Judge Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani for discovery. Pursuant to General Order 16-05, this case has been randomly reassigned to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:18-cv-2218 ODW (SHKx). (esa) |
| Filing 5 DECLARATION of Pete Cimo re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of Andrew K. Haeffele re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc., identifying Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Walmart Inc.. (Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc.. (Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino County Superior Court, case number CIVDS1823525 Receipt No: 0973-22602691 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Wal Mart Stores Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Attorney Andrew Keith Haeffele added to party Wal Mart Stores Inc.(pty:dft))(Haeffele, Andrew) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by defendant Walmart Inc. (Filed in state court 10/7/18, submitted as document 1, attachment 2)(esa) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against defendants Does 1-50, inclusive, Wal Mart Stores Inc., Jury Demand, filed by plaintiff Anna Vela. (Filed in state court 9/10/18, submitted as document 1, attachment 1) (esa) |
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.
