Daniel Ramirez v. Walgreen Company
| Daniel Ramirez |
| Walgreen Company |
| 8:2020cv00784 |
| April 22, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Karen E Scott |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez. Dismissal is Without Prejudice. (Fisher, Lawrence) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE filed by Pro Hac Vice attorney Yitzchak Kopel on behalf of Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez. RE: Notice of Filing Fee Due. PHV fee n/a. Attorney will not be appearing as attorney of record on this case. (Thrasher, Lupe) |
Filing 9
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Yitzchak Kopel on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Walgreen Company. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (et) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez, (Fisher, Lawrence) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez. (Fisher, Lawrence) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez. (Fisher, Lawrence) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26183330 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez. (Attorney Lawrence Timothy Fisher added to party Daniel Ramirez(pty:pla))(Fisher, Lawrence) |
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
| Search for this case: Daniel Ramirez v. Walgreen Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Walgreen Company | |
| 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: Daniel Ramirez | |
| Represented By: | Lawrence Timothy Fisher |
| 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.
