Mohammad Hedayati v. The Perry Law Firm, APLC et al
| mohammad hedayati |
| Does and The Perry Law Firm, APLC |
| 8:2017cv01411 |
| August 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John D. Early |
| James V. Selna |
| Other |
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
37
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge David O. Carter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) the Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. 36) is approved an accepted; and (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED IN PART without leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs RFDCPA claims and otherwise DENIED. (es)
|
|
Filing
17
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge David O. Carter. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than January 9, 2018 why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. (see document for details). (dro)
|
|
Filing
14
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge David O. Carter. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than December 13, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. (es)
|
|
Filing
8
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge James V. Selna. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff(s) to Show Cause (OSC) in writing no later than December 15, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: (see document for details). (dro)
|
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.
