Kimberly Simmons v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al
| Kimberly Simmons |
| United States Patent and Trademark Office, Robert Ralph ("Bo Parsons, Godaddy.com and Robert Ralph Bob Parsons |
| 5:2019cv01841 |
| September 25, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| John A Kronstadt |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan (UNILATERIAL); DECLARATION OF MARIAM KALOUSTIAN WITH EXHIBITS ; estimated length of trial 1 day, filed by Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Proof of Service)(Kaloustian, Mariam) |
| Filing 13 REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office , Memorandum of Points and Authorities #5 filed by Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Kaloustian, Mariam) |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL filed by Plaintiff Kimberly Simmons, re Answer Opposition #11 served on 10/25/2019. (jp) |
| Filing 11 ANSWER #5 filed by Plaintiff Kimberly Simmons. (jp) |
Filing 10
ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b)/26(f) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Counsel shall file a Joint Report consistent with this Order. A hearing is not necessary and, therefore, the matter is taken under submission. Upon review of the Joint Report, a scheduling order will be issued. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/22/2019. (ake)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 19-03 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Andre Birotte Jr, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:17-cv-08258 AB(FFMx) (rn)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING ORDERS FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOHN A. KRONSTADT upon filing of the complaint by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Please read each Order carefully as they differ in some respects from the Local Rules. Counsel are advised that the Court, at any time, may amend one or more of its Standing Orders. It is the responsibility of counsel to refer to this Court's Procedures and Schedules found on the website for the United States District Court, Central District of California (www.cacd.uscourts.gov) to obtain the operative order. The Court thanks the parties and their counsel for their anticipated cooperation in carrying out these requirements. (jre)
|
|
Filing 7
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING HEARING FOR MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (DKT. #5 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court, on its own motion, continues the hearing date of November 4, 2019, for Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (the "Motion") (Dkt. 5) to February 10, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. This continuance is based on the Court's Standing Order that requires counsel to review the Court's Closed Motion Dates prior to selecting a hearing date. Standing Order at 9. The November 4, 2019, hearing date is closed. Per the Court's Standing Order briefing schedule for motions filing more than 70 days in advance of the hearing date, Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the Motion on or before October 23, 2019, and Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office shall file any reply on or before November 6, 2019. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 6 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office , Memorandum of Points and Authorities #5 filed by Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Kaloustian, Mariam) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office , Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office. Motion set for hearing on 11/4/2019 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Mariam Kaloustian, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Proposed Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, #15 Proof of Service) (Kaloustian, Mariam) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 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 19-03, this case has been randomly reassigned to District Judge John A. Kronstadt. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:19-cv-01841 JAK (SHKx). (jtil) |
| COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Kimberly Simmons in Riverside Superior Court on 5/17/2019, attached as Exhibit 1. (jtil) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Kaloustian, Mariam) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Riverside County Superior Court, case number RIC1809062 No Fee Required - US Government, filed by defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 (Complaint), #2 Proof of Service) (Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party United States Patent and Trademark Office(pty:dft))(Kaloustian, Mariam) |
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.
