Martina Rodriguez v. Adecco USA, Inc. et al
| Martina Rodriguez |
| Adecco USA, Inc., Cardinal Health, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive |
| 5:2021cv01967 |
| November 19, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
| Sheri Pym |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: Amended Complaint/Petition #13 by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The document is stricken, (lc) |
Filing 15
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Scheduling Conference set for 2/25/2022 at 01:00 PM before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Complaint/Petition #13 . The following error(s) was/were found: Caption of document is incomplete/incorrect. Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: See Below Under Other. Leave of court required for filing. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. The pdf is NOT an Amended complaint: 1) Pdf document is only an amendment naming doe defendants. This Not a procedure to complaints applicable in federal court 2) A first amended complaint was previously filed in state court 3) Filer should file proper documents to seek leave from the Judge, to which the missing proposed order, and the Missing Proposed amended complaint with corresponding captions adjusted to reflect the named defendants and the change in the numbered Doe defendants accordingly. 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. (lc) |
| Filing 13 (STRICKEN PER 1/11/2022 COURT'S G112B RESPONSE DOCKET NO. 16).AMENDMENT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NAMING DOES 1 AND DOES 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant All Defendants amending Amended Complaint,, filed by plaintiff Martina Rodriguez(Agadzhanyan, Serop) Modified on 1/11/2022 (lc). |
| Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc., Initial Standing Order served on December 1, 2021. (Cain, Patrick) |
|
Filing 11
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. (tf)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge James V. Selna. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 21-01. Case randomly reassigned from Judge James V. Selna to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 5:21-cv-01967-FLA (SPx). (eva)
|
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc., Proof of Filing And Service of Notice To State Court And Adverse Party of Removal to Federal Court served on 11/22/2021. (Cain, Patrick) |
| Filing 8 Local Rule 7.1-1 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc., identifying Adecco, Inc.; ADO Staffing, Inc.; Adecco Group, AG. (Cain, Patrick) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (et) |
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 4 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 Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym for discovery. Pursuant to General Order 21-01, this case has been randomly reassigned to District Judge James V. Selna. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:21-cv-01967-JVS (SPx). (et) |
| NON-CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. [SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT C TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 . (et) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Adecco USA, Inc., Cardinal Health, Inc., Does 1 through 25, Inclusiveamending Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , filed by Plaintiff Martina Rodriguez. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 9/24/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 .(et) |
| Filing 3 SECOND AMENDED CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.. (Cain, Patrick) |
| Filing 2 AMENDED CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.. (Cain, Patrick) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIVSB2120110 Receipt No: ACACDC-32356541 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Attorney Patrick J. Cain added to party Adecco USA, Inc.(pty:dft))(Cain, Patrick) |
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.
