Theresa Brooke v. Prakash V. Patel
| Theresa Brooke |
| Prakash Patel and Prakash V. Patel |
| 5:2023cv01523 |
| August 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Shashi H Kewalramani |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Pursuant to Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal #16 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1): IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The entire action and all claims asserted therein are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 2. All dates and deadlines in this action are VACATED and taken off calendar. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooke. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Strojnik, P) |
|
Filing 15
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court has reviewed the Response filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel to the Court's Order to Show Cause #14 . Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any other construction-relatedaccessibility claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooketo Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, #13 (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Strojnik, P) |
|
Filing 13
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing No Later Than fourteen ( 14) days from date of this order why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367 (c). (lc)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: ORDER REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CASES UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The Court finds that there is good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning basic case prosecution for cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act involving access barriers in places of public accommodation. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC ENUMERATED REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES THEREIN). The failure to comply with this Order in a particular case will result in a sanction of $300.00 payable to the clerk of the court within two weeks of Plaintiff being given notice of noncompliance and dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Court finds these sanctions sufficient and necessary to deter violations of the Order and to achieve timely prosecution of these cases without unnecessary intervention by the Court. (lc)
|
| Filing 11 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (lc) |
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D Wright, II: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY- No mandatory chambers copies required, EXCEPT FOR EXCEPT FOR motions for summary judgment and any other evidence-heavy motions. The Courts Electronic Document Submission System (EDSS) allows people without lawyers who have pending cases in the US District Court for the Central District of California to submit documents electronically to the Clerks Office The parties may consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge appearing on the voluntary consent list. PLEASE refer to Local Rule 79-5 for the submission of CIVIL ONLY SEALED DOCUMENTS. CRIMINAL SEALED DOCUMENTS will remain the same. Please refer to Courts Website and Judges procedures for information as applicable. (lc)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE Pursuant to this Court's General Order in the Matter of Assignment of Cases and Duties to the District Judges. (identical case) by Judge Percy Anderson, Case Management and Assignment Committee Chair. Case transferred to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright, II for all further proceedings. All discovery matters are transferred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani. Case number now reads as 5:23-cv-01523 ODW(SHKx). (rn)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Prakash V. Patel. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooke. (Strojnik, P) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, (Strojnik, P) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooke. (Strojnik, P) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-35779290 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Theresa Brooke. (Attorney P Kristofer Strojnik added to party Theresa Brooke(pty:pla))(Strojnik, P) |
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.
