James Rutherford v. Shalabi Enterprises Partners et al
| James Rutherford |
| Shalabi Enterprises Partners, Does 1-10, Walid Shalabi, Farid Shalabi, Jose Shalabi and Does 1-10, inclusive |
| 8:2020cv01053 |
| June 11, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| 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 September 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE-LAW CLAIM WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Josephine L. Staton: For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing in state court. (bm)
|
| Filing 17 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, #16 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Shalabi)(Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 16
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. In so responding, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to: (see document for further information). (bm)
|
| Filing 15 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (tg) |
| Filing 14 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON. (tg) |
| Filing 13 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Jose Shalabi. (ghap) |
| Filing 12 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Walid Shalabi. (ghap) |
| Filing 11 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Farid Shalabi. (ghap) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Shalabi Enterprises Partners. (ghap) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 6 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual, (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26779268 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual. (Attorney Joseph Richard Manning, Jr added to party JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual(pty:pla))(Manning, Joseph) |
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.
