Derrick Appelzoller v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. et al
| Derrick Appelzoller |
| Caremark Pharmacy Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., Does 1 through 10, CVS Health Inc. and CVS/Caremark |
| 8:2020cv00732 |
| April 13, 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 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, Granting Stipulation to Stay Action and Transfer Matter to Binding Arbitration #11 . SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (twdb)
|
| Filing 11 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Arbitration filed by Defendant CVS Pharmacy Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Haeffele, Andrew) |
| Filing 10 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge David O. Carter. The Parties in this matter are not in compliance with this Courts scheduling order, which ORDERS parties to file their Rule 26(f) report with the Court no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Scheduling Conference set by the Court. Scheduling Order at 2. The Report is now due on or before tomorrow at 12:00PM. Failure to submit the order will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution. Response due by 6/4/2020. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kd) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge David O. Carter. Scheduling Conference set for 6/15/2020 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (See attached Order for complete details.) (kd)
|
| Filing 8 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Plaintiff Derrick Appelzoller.. (Donahue, Timothy) |
| Filing 7 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOLLOWING ASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASE TO JUDGE CARTER. (kd) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (jtil) |
| ANSWER to Complaint filed by Defendants CVS Health Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., filed 4/13/2020 attached as Exhibit B. (jtil) Modified on 4/14/2020 (jtil). |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Derrick Appelzoller in Orange County Superior Court on 12/23/2019, attached as Exhibit A. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of Jason I. Bluver re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 filed by Defendants CVS Health Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., CVS/Caremark, Caremark Pharmacy Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Bluver, Jason) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants CVS Health Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., CVS/Caremark, Caremark Pharmacy Inc., identifying CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; CVS Health Corporation. (Bluver, Jason) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants CVS Health Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., CVS/Caremark, Caremark Pharmacy Inc.. (Bluver, Jason) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2019-01120048 Receipt No: ACACDC-26069140 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendants CVS/Caremark, Caremark Pharmacy Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., CVS Health Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Attorney Jason I Bluver added to party CVS Health Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Jason I Bluver added to party CVS Pharmacy Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Jason I Bluver added to party CVS/Caremark(pty:dft), Attorney Jason I Bluver added to party Caremark Pharmacy Inc.(pty:dft))(Bluver, Jason) |
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.
