Andre Harris v. Cox Enterprises, Inc. et al
| Andre Harris |
| Cox Enterprises, Inc., Cox Automotive Services, LLC, Manheim Remarketing, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive and Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC |
| Linda Krieger |
| 5:2022cv00488 |
| March 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dale S Fischer |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to FRCP 41 filed by Defendant Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC.(Berkowitz, Paul) |
| Filing 21 MINUTES OF RE #20 Motion for Order; Discovery Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani: As stated on the record, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is to produce documents responsive to Defendant's RFP No. 39 by no later than September 13, 2022. Court Recorder: courtsmart. (dc) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Informal Discovery Dispute Zoom Webinar Video Conference set for 9/6/2022 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. (dc) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Panel Mediator. Mediator (ADR Panel) Linda Krieger has been assigned to serve as Panel Mediator. (lst) |
| Filing 18 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendant Cox Enterprises, Inc. filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc..(Berkowitz, Paul) |
Filing 17
ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 1/31/2023. (vv)
|
|
Filing 16
Order re Jury Trial by Judge Dale S. Fischer. These dates and requirements are firm. The Court is very unlikely to grant continuances unless the parties establish good cause through a concrete showing. Failure to complete discovery in a timely manner does not constitute good cause, nor does the fact that a settlement conference is pending. Each side is limited to five motions in limine, unless the Court orders otherwise. See Trial Order for specifics. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/27/2023 at 3:00 PM. Jury Trial set for 4/25/2023 at 8:30 AM. (vv)
|
| Filing 15 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING ORDER. The Court takes the Scheduling Conference off calendar and establishes the case management dates as proposed by parties in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report as further described in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates except as noted in the Order re Trial. (See Order re Trial for specific dates and times.) These dates and requirements are firm. The Court is very unlikely to grant continuances unless the parties establish good cause through a concrete showing. Failure to complete discovery in a timely manner does not constitute good cause, nor does the fact that a settlement conference is pending. Each side is limited to five motions in limine unless the Court orders otherwise. All fictitiously named defendants are dismissed. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vv) |
| Filing 14 DECLARATION of Joshua M. Mohrsaz re Text Only Scheduling Notice,,,,,,,,,,, 11 filed by Plaintiff Andre Harris. (Pairavi, Edwin) |
| Filing 13 DECLARATION of Paul Berkowitz re Text Only Scheduling Notice,,,,,,,,,,, 11 filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc.. (Berkowitz, Paul) |
| Filing 12 REPORT of Amended Joint Scheduling filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc.. (Berkowitz, Paul) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS. This overburdened court and its staff do not have time to communicate repeatedly with counsel in an effort to have them follow the rules and orders of this Court. Counsel have failed to comply with the Order Setting Scheduling Conference and the attached Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates in one or more respects. For example, counsel may have (1) failed to file a Joint 26(f) Report at all, (2) failed to provide all of the information required by the Order, (3) failed to attach a Schedule, or (4) failed to complete the Schedule properly. Counsel are ordered to show cause why each side should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500 for their failure to comply with the Order. Counsel whose signature appears on the Joint 26(f) Report must file a declaration stating who was (1) responsible for meeting with opposing counsel, (2) responsible for preparing and reviewing the Report and ensuring its accuracy and compliance with the Order, and (3) responsible for filing the Report. The declaration should state the name of that person (only if the person is an attorney) and the position of that person (partner, associate, paralegal, assistant, secretary, etc.). The declaration shall also state why the Report failed to comply with the Order. If no Report was filed, the declaration must state who was (1) responsible for calendaring the date for meeting with counsel and filing the Report, (2) responsible for responsible for meeting with opposing counsel, and (3) responsible for filing the Report. The same information as to name and position must be provided as well as an explanation as to why no Report was filed. In addition, the parties are ordered to review the Order Setting Scheduling Conference and the attached Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates carefully, and to provide a Report and a Schedule that provides specific dates for all of the relevant items in the Schedule. The dates must comply with the time frames in the Weeks before trial column and the required days of the week: a Monday (not a holiday) for the pretrial conference and last day for hearing motions and a Tuesday (not a holiday) for trial. The declarations, Report, and Schedule are due within five Court days. The filing of compliant declarations, Report, and Schedule will be a sufficient response to this Order to Show Cause. The scheduling conference date is vacated. The parties are urged to conduct themselves in a professional manner and to make every effort to agree on dates. Further failures to comply with the rules and orders of this Court, and the rules and orders of the Central District, will result in sanctions against one or both parties. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vv)
|
| Filing 10 JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT filed by Defendant Cox Enterprises, Inc.. (Wilson, Brianna) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Lead trial counsel are ordered to appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court. Scheduling Conference set for 5/2/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (vv)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dale S. Fischer. If a party would be entitled to attorneys fees, counsel are referred to the Order Re Fees found on Court's website under Judge Fischer&'s Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judge's Requirements tab. Read all Orders carefully. They govern this case and differ in some respects from the Local Rules. COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF REMOVAL, AND ANY OTHER INITIATING DOCUMENTS. (vv)
|
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (sh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (sh) |
| 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 Dale S. Fischer. The case number on all documents filed with the Court in this case should read as follows: 5:22-cv-00488 DSF (SHKx). (sh) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc. identifying Cox Enterprises, Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Berkowitz, Paul) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants All Defendants, identifying Cox Enterprises, inc.. (Attorney Paul Berkowitz added to party Manheim Remarketing, Inc.(pty:dft))(Berkowitz, Paul) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc.. (Berkowitz, Paul) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIVSB2132157 Receipt No: ACACDC-32970631 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendants Cox Automotive Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Summons, #3 Exhibit C - Answer, #4 Proof of Service) (Attorney Paul Berkowitz added to party Cox Automotive Services, LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Paul Berkowitz added to party Cox Enterprises, Inc.(pty:dft))(Berkowitz, Paul) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Cox Automotive Services, LLC, Cox Enterprises, Inc., Does, Manheim Remarketing, Inc. Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Andre Harris. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 11/12/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A AS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ] (sh) |
| NON-CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendant Andre Harris. [FILED IN STATE COURT DATE NOT INDICATED SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT C AS ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ](sh) |
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.
