Bryan Williams v. Leila Slayton et al
Bryan Williams |
Lucky Smoke Shop, Leila Slayton and Does 1-10, inclusive |
8:2019cv02218 |
November 15, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Douglas F McCormick |
Josephine L Staton |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 MINUTES (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 1/13/2020, why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41, for lack of prosecution. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). (jp) |
Filing 14 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (DOC. #10 ) by Judge Josephine L. Staton: On 11/27/2019, Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew that claim. (Doc. #11 .) Accordingly, the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause. (jp) |
Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bryan Williams, upon Defendant Leila Slayton served on 11/27/2019, answer due 12/18/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Leila Slayton by Liz Spzia, Employee in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Bryan Williams, upon Defendant Lucky Smoke Shop served on 11/22/2019, answer due 12/13/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Lucky Smoke Shop by Mike Patel, manager in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 11 WITHDRAWAL of filed by Plaintiff Bryan Williams. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 10 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim. Failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). (jp) |
Filing 9 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (tg) |
Filing 8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON. (tg) |
Filing 7 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendants Lucky Smoke Shop, Leila Slayton. (esa) |
Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (esa) |
Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Bryan Williams. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Bryan Williams, (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Bryan Williams. (Cornell, Ross) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24788027 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff Bryan Williams. (Attorney Ross Cornell added to party Bryan Williams(pty:pla))(Cornell, Ross) |
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.