Madalyn Jones v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al
| Madalyn Jones |
| Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Melanie Christensen, Does 2 through 50, inclusive and Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints |
| 8:2019cv00347 |
| February 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| Josephine L Staton |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 REPORT of Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by Plaintiff Madalyn Jones. (Simon, Brandon) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Madalyn Jones, served on April 15, 2019. (Davis, Travis) |
Filing 10
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Scheduling Conference is set for 5/3/2019 at 10:30 A.M. See document for details. (tg)
|
| Filing 9 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Proof of Service)(Attorney Paul J Shardlow added to party Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints(pty:dft))(Shardlow, Paul) |
| Filing 8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (tg) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (esa) |
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, re Notice (Other) #4 served on February 25, 2019. (Shardlow, Paul) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Shardlow, Paul) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against defendants Melanie Christensen, Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Jury Demand, filed by plaintiff Madalyn Jones. (Filed in state court 1/3/19, submitted as document 1, attachment 5) (esa) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Melanie Christensen, Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, filed by plaintiff Madalyn Jones. (Filed in state court 1/23/19, submitted as document 1, attachment 1)(esa) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Shardlow, Paul) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Shardlow, Paul) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County, case number 30-2019-01041966 Receipt No: 0973-23258805 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E) (Attorney Paul J Shardlow added to party Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(pty:dft))(Shardlow, Paul) |
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.
