James Rutherford v. Golden Tower Properties, LLC et al
| James Rutherford |
| Does 1-10, inclusive and Golden Tower Properties, LLC |
| 5:2019cv02377 |
| December 11, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Sheri Pym |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Golden Tower Properties, LLC answer now due 3/3/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Golden Tower Properties, LLC.(Attorney Sean A Topp added to party Golden Tower Properties, LLC(pty:dft))(Topp, Sean) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Golden Tower Properties, LLC served on 1/14/2020, answer due 2/4/2020. 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 10 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Rutherford)(Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The Response shall be filed on or before December 31, 2019. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (iv)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE to Parties Re (ADR-20) ADA Disability Access Litigation/Application for Stay and Early Mediation: PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED to serve the ADA Packet on Defendant(s) at the same time the summons and complaint are served, if possible. If, upon receipt of this Notice to Parties, Plaintiff has already served Defendant(s), Plaintiff must serve the ADA Packet no later than fourteen (14) days after this Notice to Parties is filed by the Court. Within three (3) days of serving Defendant(s), Plaintiff must file with the Court a proof of service indicating that the ADA Packet was served on Defendant(s). *See Notice for further details.* (smom) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Golden Tower Properties, LLC. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (et) |
| 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: 0973-24932813 - 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.
