James Rutherford et al v. McDonald s No. 1127, et al
| James Rutherford and The Association 4 Equal Access |
| Does 1-10, inlcusive, McDonald s No. 1127 and McDonald s Corporation |
| 8:2018cv00754 |
| April 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Hashemi, Babak) |
Filing 15
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Staying Action Pending Final Settlement, Removing Case from Active Caseload, and Filing of Dismissal. Re Notice of Settlement #14 , (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (mt)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Settlement of entire case filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff McDonald s No. 1127, upon Defendant McDonald s No. 1127 served on 5/15/2018, answer due 6/5/2018. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 12 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant McDonald s Corporation, (Bhaskar, Meera) |
| Filing 11 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to McDonald s Corporation answer now due 6/22/2018, filed by Defendant McDonald s Corporation.(Attorney Meera Bhaskar added to party McDonald s Corporation(pty:dft))(Bhaskar, Meera) |
| Filing 10 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant McDonald s Corporation. (esa) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant McDonald s No. 1127. (esa) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to clerical error. Case is transferred to the Southern Division. Case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick for all further proceedings. New Case Number 8:18-cv-00754 DFM. (esa) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access, (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-21668514 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs James Rutherford, The Association 4 Equal Access. (Attorney Babak Hashemi added to party James Rutherford(pty:pla), Attorney Babak Hashemi added to party The Association 4 Equal Access(pty:pla))(Hashemi, Babak) |
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.
