Phil Kueber v. Bizdrive Asset Management Inc et al
| Phil Kueber |
| Bizdrive Asset Management Inc, Bizdrive USA Inc and Does |
| 8:2013cv01127 |
| July 26, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John E. McDermott |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Contract Product Liability |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
50
ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiff's response that binding Ninth Circuit precedent is "flawed" and "based on a misreading of older cases" is not sufficient to allay this court's jurisdictional conce rns. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons discussed in this court's Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 46). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 36 is VACATED.In addition, the SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for February 23, 2015 is VACATED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiff Phil Kueber is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered to file a brief, not to exceed five pages, within 10 days of the date of this order showing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff should also deliver a courtesy copy tochambers, (lc)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Plaintiff Phil Kueber is ordered to show cause why this action should not dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdicti on. Plaintiff is ordered to file a brief, not to exceed five pages, within 10 days of the date of this order, showing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles. The court will regard any failure to file an explanatory brief as consent to dismiss this matter. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
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.
