James Rutherford v. Antonjitos La Lagunilla et al
| James Rutherford |
| F.J. HANSHAW ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation, ANTOJITOS LA LAGUNILLA, a business entity of unknown form, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. and Antonjitos La Lagunilla |
| 8:2019cv02481 |
| December 23, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John D Early |
| Josephine L Staton |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. Dismissal is with Prejudice. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. served on 1/6/2020, answer due 1/27/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Antonjitos La Lagunilla served on 1/3/2020, answer due 1/24/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Hashemi, Babak) |
Filing 13
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE-LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Josephine L. Staton: The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims in this action, and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing in state court. (jp)
|
| Filing 12 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, #9 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Babak Hashemi, #2 Declaration of Plaintiff)(Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 11 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (tg) |
| Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON. (tg) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Accordingly, 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 Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Antonjitos La Lagunilla, and F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. (Attachments: #1 FJ Hanshaw) (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Hashemi, Babak) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-25004465 - Fee: $400. (Attorney Babak Hashemi added to party James Rutherford(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.
