Bianka Reyes v. Starbucks Corporation et al
| Bianka Reyes |
| Starbucks Corporation |
| 5:2024cv00340 |
| February 9, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Sheri Pym |
| Sunshine Suzanne Sykes |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 2-3 Days, filed by Plaintiff Bianka Reyes.. (Attachments: #1 Schedule of Dates Worksheet)(Contreras, Christian) |
Filing 10
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes. Scheduling Conference set for 4/12/2024 at 01:00 PM before Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes. (iva)
|
|
Filing 9
CIVIL STANDING ORDER by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes. (iva)
|
| Filing 8 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Christian M. Contreras counsel for Plaintiff Bianka Reyes. Adding Christian Contreras as counsel of record for Bianks Reyes for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Bianka Reyes. (Attorney Christian M. Contreras added to party Bianka Reyes(pty:pla))(Contreras, Christian) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (lh) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 Answer to Complaint filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation.(Bradley, Lindy) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY COMPLAINT against Defendants Starbucks Corporation, filed by Plaintiff Bianka Reyes. (FILED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON 7/14/2023 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ) (lh) |
| Filing 3 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation, identifying Starbucks Corporation. (Bradley, Lindy) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Bradley, Lindy) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Riverside County Superior Court, case number CVRI2303613 Receipt No: ACACDC-36893033 - Fee: $405, filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint) (Attorney Lindy F Bradley added to party Starbucks Corporation(pty:dft))(Bradley, Lindy) |
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
| Search for this case: Bianka Reyes v. Starbucks Corporation 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: Bianka Reyes | |
| Represented By: | Humberto M Guizar |
| Represented By: | Christian M. Contreras |
| 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: Starbucks Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Lindy F Bradley |
| 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.
