Cindy Glenna v. Ford Motor Company et al
| Cindy Glenna |
| Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 8:2017cv01520 |
| September 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jay C Gandhi |
| Josephine L Staton |
| Contract: Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Josephine L. Staton re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Order to Show Cause, #12 . The Court, having previously issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (doc. 12), with the response due no later than November 13, 2017, and the Court having received no response, the matter is hereby ordered DISMISSED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (dv)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Counsel is hereby ordered to show cause in writing no later than November 13, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41, for lack of prosecution. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of an appropriate response. See document for further information. (dv)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna, upon Defendant Ford Motor Company served on 9/7/2017, answer due 9/28/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gladys Aguilera-Person Authorized to Accept in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 10 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company.(Attorney Spencer Peter Hugret added to party Ford Motor Company(pty:dft))(Hugret, Spencer) |
| Filing 9 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (tg) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Ford Motor Company. (et) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (et) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Hallen David Rosner counsel for Plaintiff Cindy Glenna. Adding Hallen David Rosner as counsel of record for Cindy Glenna for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna. (Attorney Hallen David Rosner added to party Cindy Glenna(pty:pla))(Rosner, Hallen) |
| Filing 3 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna, (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna. (Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-20447479 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Cindy Glenna. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C) (Attorney Jeffrey L Le Pere added to party Cindy Glenna(pty:pla))(Le Pere, Jeffrey) |
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.
