Bryan Estrada v. Livescan Fingerprinting et al
| Bryan Estrada |
| Livescan Fingerprinting, Kumar Chaklashiya, Bhanu Chaklashiya and Does 1-10, inclusive |
| 5:2020cv01645 |
| August 17, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Kenly Kiya Kato |
| Fernando M Olguin |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff Bryan Estrada. Dismissal is with. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 15
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Case Terminated; Made JS-6) (vdr)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Settlement filed by plaintiff Bryan Estrada. (Cornell, Ross) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER RE: ADA ACCESSIBILTY CASES by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr)
|
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bryan Estrada, upon Defendant Kumar Chaklashiya served on 8/21/2020, answer due 9/11/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kumar Chaklashiya in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bryan Estrada, upon Defendant Livescan Fingerprinting served on 8/21/2020, answer due 9/11/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Livescan Fingerprinting by Kumar Chaklashiya in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bryan Estrada, upon Defendant Bhanu Chaklashiya served on 8/21/2020, answer due 9/11/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Bhanu Chaklashiya by Kumar Chaklashiya in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 9 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. This matter has been assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Court refers counsel to the Court's Initial Standing Order found on the Court's Website under Judge Olguin's Procedures and Schedules. Please read this Order carefully. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Bhanu Chaklashiya, Kumar Chaklashiya, Livescan Fingerprinting. (lh) |
| Filing 7 Notice to counsel re consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Eastern Division Blackout Case. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin 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 Bryan Estrada. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Bryan Estrada, (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Bryan Estrada. (Cornell, Ross) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-27653600 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Bryan Estrada. (Attorney Ross Cornell added to party Bryan Estrada(pty:pla))(Cornell, Ross) |
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.
