Juan Ramos Casillas v. Performance Abatement Services, Inc. et al
Juan Ramos Casillas |
Performance Abatement Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive |
8:2018cv01538 |
August 27, 2018 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Andrew J Guilford |
Autumn D Spaeth |
Labor: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 [IN CHAMBERS] SCHEDULING NOTICE: On the Court's own motion, the Scheduling Conference previously scheduled for 10/29/2018 at 9:00 am is continued to 11/5/2018 at 9:00 am.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
Filing 11 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan /Early Meeting of Counsel ; estimated length of trial 5 to 7 days, filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc... (Choi, Kathleen) |
![]() |
Filing 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc., re Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) - optional html form #8 , Corporate Disclosure Statement #5 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Declaration #4 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Declaration #3 , Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) - optional html form #7 , Intradistrict Transfer - Clerical Error (G-73) - optional html form, #6 served on August 28, 2018. (Choi, Kathleen) |
Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andrew J. Guilford and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (lh) |
Filing 6 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Southern Division. Case has been assigned to Judge Andrew J. Guilford for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Autumn D. Spaeth. New Case Number 8:18-cv-01538-AG(ADSx). (lh) |
NON-CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc. [SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL](lh) |
CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 50, Performance Abatement Services, Inc. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff Juan Ramos Casillas. #1 [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 7/6/2018 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL] (lh) |
Filing 5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc. identifying Performance Contracting Group, Inc. as Corporate Parent. (Choi, Kathleen) |
Filing 4 DECLARATION of Robyn Kavanagh re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc.. (Choi, Kathleen) |
Filing 3 DECLARATION of Kathleen Choi re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Choi, Kathleen) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc.. (Choi, Kathleen) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, case number 30-2018-01003896-CU-WT-CJC Receipt No: 0973-22323549 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Performance Abatement Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D - Answer to Complaint) (Attorney Kathleen J Choi added to party Performance Abatement Services, Inc.(pty:dft))(Choi, Kathleen) |
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.