Shalana Carter v. Victorville Motors, Inc. et al
| Shalana Carter |
| Victorville Motors, Inc., FCA US LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 5:2020cv00507 |
| March 9, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Sheri Pym |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
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 23 Receipt of Copy of Remand Transmittal Letter from San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS2003966, acknowledged on 5/28/2020. (gk) |
| Filing 22 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Clerk, San Bernardino Superior Court, San Bernardino Justice Center. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Clerk, San Bernardino Superior Court, San Bernardino Justice Center. (gk) |
Filing 21
ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND PLAINTIFF'S CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation #20 , this Court hereby remands this matter to the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVDS2003966. Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration #10 and Plaintiff's motion for remand to Superior Court of California and award of costs and expenses resulting from removal #16 are DENIED as moot. The 5/1/2020 hearing on the motions and scheduling conference are VACATED. (gk)
|
| Filing 20 Joint STIPULATION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Remand Case State Court)(Stanton, Garrett) |
|
Filing 19
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court sua sponte continues Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration #10 and the scheduling conference #8 from April 24, 2020 to May 1, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 18 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino #16 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Notice of Interested Parties and/or no copies. 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. (gk) |
| Filing 17 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Arbitration #10 filed by Plaintiff Shalana Carter. (Attachments: #1 Plaintiff's Objections to the Declaration of Kelli Day and Exhibit A Attached Thereto Filed By Defendant Victorville Motors Inc., in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration)(Kalinowski, Daniel) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino filed by Plaintiff Shalana Carter. Motion set for hearing on 5/1/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Daniel Kalinowski, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Proposed Order) (Kalinowski, Daniel) |
| Filing 15 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Daniel Max Kalinowski counsel for Plaintiff Shalana Carter. Adding Daniel Kalinowski as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Shalana Carter. (Attorney Daniel Max Kalinowski added to party Shalana Carter(pty:pla))(Kalinowski, Daniel) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Lodgment #13 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Notices-Notice of Lodging. 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. (bm) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VICTORVILLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Arbitration #10 filed by Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc.. (Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 12 FCA US LLC'S CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Arbitration #10 filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 11 DECLARATION of Garrett B. Stanton in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Arbitration #10 filed by Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Arbitration filed by Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/24/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Kelli Day's Declaration) (Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant Victorville Motors, Inc..(Attorney Garrett B Stanton added to party Victorville Motors, Inc.(pty:dft))(Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 8 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26(f)] by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 4/10/2020. Scheduling Conference set for 4/24/2020 at 9:30 a.m (See order for details.) (kti) |
|
Filing 7
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Eastern Division Removal Case. This case was initially assigned to District Judge Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym for discovery. Pursuant to General Order 19-03, this case has been randomly reassigned to District Judge Dolly M. Gee. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:20-cv-00507 DMG (SPx). (ghap) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Eastern Division. Case has been assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Sheri Pym. New Case Number 5:20-cv-00507 JGB (SPx). (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, FCA US LLC, Victorville Motors, Inc. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Shalana Carter. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 2/5/2020 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A) (ghap) |
| NON CONFORM COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT E)(ghap) |
| Filing 3 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant FCA US LLC, identifying Victorville Motors, Inc.; FCA North America Holdings, LLC; and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V.. (Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Stanton, Garrett) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIVDS2003966 Receipt No: ACACDC-25660925 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant FCA US LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Garrett B. Stanton, #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 Declaration of Richard L. Stuhlbarg) (Attorney Garrett B Stanton added to party FCA US LLC(pty:dft))(Stanton, Garrett) |
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.
