James Rutherford v. Nancy Louise Jones et al
| James Rutherford |
| Does 1-10, inclusive, Karen L. Jones, Kevin R. Jones and Nancy Louise Jones |
| 8:2020cv01309 |
| July 21, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| 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 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE ON NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL #14 . The Court orders all proceedings in the case vacated and taken off calendar. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)
|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Nancy Louise Jones served on 8/28/2020, answer due 9/18/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Karen L. Jones served on 8/8/2020, answer due 8/31/2020; Kevin R. Jones served on 8/8/2020, answer due 8/31/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM by Judge Cormac J. Carney. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb)
|
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Set/Reset Deadlines, #10 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Rutherford)(Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 10
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. ( Show Cause Response due by 8/7/2020.) (twdb)
|
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Karen L. Jones, Kevin R. Jones. (lh) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Nancy Louise Jones. (lh) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (lh) |
| 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-27291229 - 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.
