Dominique Rochelle v. AutoZone, Inc. et al
| Dominique Rochelle |
| AutoZone, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive |
| 5:2021cv01002 |
| June 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Fernando M Olguin |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 TRANSMITTAL of documents to San Bernardino County Superior Court. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to San Bernardino County Superior Court. (iv) |
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (iv)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Scheduling Conference set for 8/26/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (vdr)
|
| Filing 7 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 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Eastern Division Removal Case and Notice re Consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case was initially assigned to District Judge John W. Holcomb and referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani for discovery. Pursuant to General Order 21-01, this case has been randomly reassigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:21-cv-01002 FMO (SHKx). (jtil) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant AutoZone, Inc., re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 served on June 16, 2021. (Hoffman, Michael) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendant AutoZone, Inc. in San Bernardino Superior Court, attached as Exhibit 3. (jtil) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Dominique Rochelle in San Bernardino Superior Court on 3/16/2021, attached as Exhibit 1. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant AutoZone, Inc., identifying AutoZone, Inc., is a publicly traded company. (Hoffman, Michael) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant AutoZone, Inc.. (Hoffman, Michael) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIV-SB-2107595 Receipt No: ACACDC-31468779 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant AutoZone, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exh. A-Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit Exh. B-State Ct. Civil Cover Sheet, Certificate of Assignment, Notice of Trial Setting Conf. & Notice of Case Assignment, #3 Exhibit Exh. C-State Court Answer, #4 Exhibit Exh. D-Nevada Secretary of State Registration, #5 Exhibit Exh. E-AutoZone Form 10-K) (Attorney Michael A Hoffman, III added to party AutoZone, Inc.(pty:dft))(Hoffman, Michael) |
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.
