Jack Dinh v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jack Dinh
Defendant: CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.
Case Number: 8:2019cv01310
Filed: July 2, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Karen E Scott
Referring Judge: James V Selna
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 17 *NOTE: CHANGE MADE BY THE COURT* ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING MEDIATION #16 by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. All proceedings in the litigation are hereby stayed pending the conclusion of the Parties' upcoming mediation. 2. The Parties shall provide this Court with a status report on or before September 9, 2019, detailing the selected mediator and mediation date. 3. Scheduling Conference set for August 26, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. is ordered VACATED. (es)
August 19, 2019 Filing 16 STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Mediation filed by Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kim, Jason)
August 11, 2019 Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh, upon Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. served on 7/10/2019, answer due 8/30/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kaneisha Gross, Authorized Person for Defendant's Agent Corporation Service Company in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Barthel, Nicholas)
July 19, 2019 Filing 14 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jason Jonathan Kim counsel for Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. Adding Jason J. Kim as counsel of record for Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Attorney Jason Jonathan Kim added to party Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.(pty:dft))(Kim, Jason)
July 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS (L.R. 8-3) #11 , by Judge James V. Selna. Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. shall file and serve its response to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before August 30, 2019. (es)
July 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 23-3 #11 by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification shall be set at the scheduling conference. (es)
July 18, 2019 Filing 11 Joint STIPULATION for Relief from Local Rule 23-3 filed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Proof of Service)(Barthel, Nicholas)
July 18, 2019 Filing 10 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. answer now due 8/30/2019, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Ann Marie Mortimer added to party Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.(pty:dft))(Mortimer, Ann)
July 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference set for 08/26/2019 at 11:30 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule 26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 8/19/2019. (lb)
July 5, 2019 Filing 8 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA (lb)
July 3, 2019 Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (lh)
July 3, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh)
July 3, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (lh)
July 2, 2019 Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh, identifying Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Kazerounian, Seyed)
July 2, 2019 Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 filed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh. (Kazerounian, Seyed)
July 2, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh. (Kazerounian, Seyed)
July 2, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24018768 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Jack Dinh. (Attorney Seyed Abbas Kazerounian added to party Jack Dinh(pty:pla))(Kazerounian, Seyed)

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 this case: Jack Dinh v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.
Represented By: Ann Marie Mortimer
Represented By: Jason Jonathan Kim
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jack Dinh
Represented By: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian
Represented By: Nicholas Barthel
Represented By: Robert L Hyde
Represented By: Jason A Ibey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?