Joanne Bartel v. Putnam Motors, Inc.

Plaintiff: Joanne Bartel
Defendant: Putnam Motors, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2019cv02310
Filed: December 3, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Jesus G Bernal
Referring Judge: Sheri Pym
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 14, 2020 Filing 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel. Dismissal is with prejudice. (Farkas, David)
December 23, 2019 Filing 14 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Putnam Motors, Inc. answer now due 1/24/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Putnam Motors, Inc..(Attorney Jeffrey M Rosenfeld added to party Putnam Motors, Inc.(pty:dft))(Rosenfeld, Jeffrey)
December 19, 2019 Filing 13 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Granting #12 Non-Resident Attorney Michael L. Eisenband APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Joanne Bartel Plaintiff, designating David J. Farkas as local counsel. (twdb)
December 18, 2019 Filing 12 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Michael Eisenband to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Joanne Bartel (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-24980483) filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Attorney David Joseph Farkas added to party Joanne Bartel(pty:pla)) (Farkas, David)
December 12, 2019 Filing 11 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (ima)
December 10, 2019 Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel, upon Defendant Putnam Motors, Inc. served on 12/6/2019, answer due 12/27/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon John Saba, Sales Manager in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Nicholas, Craig)
December 3, 2019 Filing 9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Garrett O. Berg. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh)
December 3, 2019 Filing 8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Ignacio J. Hiraldo. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh)
December 3, 2019 Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Putnam Motors, Inc. (lh)
December 3, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh)
December 3, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Jesus G. Bernal and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (lh)
December 3, 2019 Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel, (Nicholas, Craig)
December 3, 2019 Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel. (Nicholas, Craig)
December 3, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel. (Nicholas, Craig)
December 3, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24882331 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Joanne Bartel. (Attorney Craig M Nicholas added to party Joanne Bartel(pty:pla))(Nicholas, Craig)

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 this case: Joanne Bartel v. Putnam Motors, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Joanne Bartel
Represented By: Craig M Nicholas
Represented By: Alex Tomasevic
Represented By: Michael L Eisenband
Represented By: David Joseph Farkas
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Putnam Motors, Inc.
Represented By: Karl S Kronenberger
Represented By: Jeffrey M Rosenfeld
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?