Raul Uriarte-Limon v. Wendy C. Foley et al
| Raul Uriarte-Limon |
| Wendy C. Foley, Kevin W. Haynes, Does 1-10 and Country Farm Supply |
| 5:2020cv00569 |
| March 19, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Kenly Kiya Kato |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Settlement and request to vacate all currently set dates filed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Seabock, Amanda) |
| Filing 17 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Country Farm Supply answer now due 5/27/2020; Kevin W. Haynes answer now due 5/27/2020, filed by Attorney Country Farm Supply; Kevin W. Haynes.(Reeves, Rex) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Rex T Reeves on behalf of Defendants Country Farm Supply, Wendy C. Foley, Kevin W. Haynes (Attorney Rex T Reeves added to party Country Farm Supply(pty:dft), Attorney Rex T Reeves added to party Wendy C. Foley(pty:dft), Attorney Rex T Reeves added to party Kevin W. Haynes(pty:dft))(Reeves, Rex) |
| Filing 15 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Wendy C. Foley answer now due 5/15/2020, filed by Defendant Wendy C. Foley.(Attorney David E Karlin added to party Wendy C. Foley(pty:dft))(Karlin, David) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon, upon Defendant Kevin W. Haynes served on 4/10/2020, answer due 5/1/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Susan Fuller- Co Occupant in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
Filing 13
MINUTES ORDER [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DECLINING TO EXECISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. In light of the foregoing, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility state claims asserted in the Complaint. The Court therefore dismissed any such claims without prejudice. See 28 USC 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4). (et)
|
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon, upon Defendant Country Farm Supply served on 4/6/2020, answer due 4/27/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kevin Doe - Person in charge in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Proof of Service)(Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon, upon Defendant Wendy C. Foley served on 3/26/2020, answer due 4/16/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Handy, Russell) |
|
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 and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The Response shall be filed on or before APRIL 6, 2020. 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 Defendants Country Farm Supply, Wendy C. Foley, Kevin W. Haynes. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon, (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon. (Handy, Russell) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-25785342 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon. (Attorney Russell C Handy added to party Raul Uriarte-Limon(pty:pla))(Handy, Russell) |
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.
