Fahmia, Inc. v. Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. et al
| FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and Fahmia, Inc. |
| PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP, INC., DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive |
| 8:2020cv00965 |
| May 26, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| John D Early |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 11, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc.. Dismissal is Without Prejudice. (Vercoski, Michele) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc.to Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,, #10 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (Vercoski, Michele) |
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson. Because Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that both defendants are citizens of California, and that defendant Pacific Premier Bank is focused on serving California businesses, it appears that most potential class plaintiffs will be California businesses and CAFA's local controversy exceptions may apply. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4), because the defendants and more than two-thirds of the class of plaintiffs are citizens of the same State in which the action was originally filed. Plaintiff is additionally ordered to show cause in writing why the Court should not exercise its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(3), to decline to exercise jurisdiction over this matter because the defendant and more than one-third but less than two-thirds of the class of plaintiffs are citizens of the same State in which the action was originally filed. Plaintiff's response to this order to show cause shall be filed by no later than June 12, 2020. See minute order for details. (lom)
|
|
Filing 9
STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. (lom)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (car) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Pacific Premier Bank. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (McCune, Richard) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (McCune, Richard) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (McCune, Richard) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26570211 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (Attorney Richard D McCune added to party FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated(pty:pla))(McCune, Richard) |
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.
