James Rutherford v. Carnitas Express, et al
| James Rutherford |
| CP Sierra Vista Mur LLC, a Calorado Limited Liability Company, Carnitas Express, a business form unknown, Does 1-10, inclusive, CP Sierra Vista Mur LLC and Carnitas Express |
| 5:2018cv02226 |
| October 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 24, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 14
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT #13 by Judge Cormac J. Carney: The Court retains jurisdiction for thirty (30) days to vacate this order and to reopen the action upon showing of good cause that the settlement has not been completed. This order shall not prejudice any party in this action. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 12
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 December 12, 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 Court may dismiss the action prior to the expiration of such time, however, if plaintiffs have not diligently prosecuted the action. (iv)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant CP Sierra Vista Mur LLC served on 11/14/2018, answer due 12/5/2018. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Carnitas Express served on 11/15/2018, answer due 12/6/2018. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant CP Sierra Vista Mur LLC. (esa) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant Carnitas Express. (esa) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. (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: 0973-22606537 - 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.
