Danna Vongamath v. LegalZoom.com et al
Plaintiff: Danna Vongamath
Defendant: LegalZoom.com and Rocket Lawyer
Case Number: 5:2022cv02266
Filed: December 27, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Valerie Baker Fairbank
Referring Judge: Autumn D Spaeth
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 17, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 5 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, Re: Order #4 . (vdr)
January 17, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES (PRISONER NON-HABEAS CASE), #2 by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: The Court has reviewed the Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (the "Request") and the documents submitted with it. On the question of indigency, the Court finds that Plaintiff: has not submitted enough information for the Court to tell if Plaintiff is able to prepay the full filing fee. This is what is missing: On Form CV-60P Request to Proceed signed Dec. 22, 2022 and filed Dec. 27, 2022, plaintiff checks "no" in response to question 4, plaintiff states that he owns "Domestic California stocks 1,000,000" / Riverside Treasury." Plaintiff needs to identify the corporations in which he owns shares of stock, and specify the value of each stock holding. See attached page. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Ruling on the Request is POSTPONED for 30 days so that Plaintiff has the opportunity to provide: the missing information identified above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must do the following: File an amended complaint that fixes the deficiencies identified in the attached page and File an amended Form CV-60P Request to Proceed without Prepayment that fixes the deficiency identified above. (shb)
January 4, 2023 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank and referred to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (car)
December 27, 2022 Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Danna Vongamath. (car)
December 27, 2022 Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Case assigned to Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank and referred to Magistrate Judge Autum D. Spaeth, filed by Plaintiff Danna Vongamath. (car)

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 this case: Danna Vongamath v. LegalZoom.com et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Danna Vongamath
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: LegalZoom.com
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rocket Lawyer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?