Nancy Bernstein v. Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp. et al
| Nancy Bernstein |
| Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 8:2020cv00582 |
| March 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David O Carter |
| John D Early |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 by Judge David O. Carter. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. (twdb)
|
|
Filing 13
SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER RE: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURES by Judge David O. Carter. ( Fact Discovery cut-off 10/9/2020., Motions due by 11/9/2020 at 8:30 AM., Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/30/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter., Jury Trial set for 12/15/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter.) (twdb)
|
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: The Scheduling Conference is taken off calendar. No appearances are necessary on 5/4/20. The Court's Scheduling Order will be issued. (twdb)
|
| Filing 11 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 1 to 3 days, filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp... (Braginsky, Helen) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge David O. Carter. Scheduling Conference set for 5/4/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (See attached Order for complete details.) (kd)
|
| Filing 9 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOLLOWING ASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASE TO JUDGE CARTER. (kd) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (jtil) |
| NON CONFORMED ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp., attached as Exhibit B.(jtil) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Nancy Bernstein in Orange County Superior Court on 1/17/2020, attached as Exhibit A. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp., re Corporate Disclosure Statement #3 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #4 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Notice of Related Case(s) #5 served on March 24, 2020. (Braginsky, Helen) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp.. (Braginsky, Helen) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp., identifying Marcolin SpA. (Braginsky, Helen) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp. identifying Marcolin SpA as Corporate Parent. (Braginsky, Helen) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp.. (Braginsky, Helen) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2020-01124779-CU-BC-CJC Receipt No: ACACDC-25841291 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Rebecca Aragon, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Rebecca Aragon (State Court Complaint; ADR materials, Civil Case Cover Sheet), #3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Rebecca Aragon (State Court Answer), #4 Declaration of Dennise Tapia) (Attorney Helen Igorevna Braginsky added to party Marcolin U.S.A. Eyeware Corp.(pty:dft))(Braginsky, Helen) |
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.
