James Rutherford v. John Taylor Pedicini, et al
| JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual and James Rutherford |
| DOES 1-10 Inclusive, JOHN TAYLOR PEDICINI, individually and as trustee of the T & G TRUST, JOHN TAYLOR PEDICINI, individually and as successor trustee of the MARIA PEDICINI SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST DATED, Does 1-10, inclusive and John Taylor Pedicini |
| 8:2020cv01650 |
| August 31, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Karen E Scott |
| 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 November 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant John Taylor Pedicini(individually and as trustee of the T & G Trust) served on 10/16/2020, answer due 11/6/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service by mail and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 14
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DECLINING Supplemental Jurisdiction and DISMISSING State-Law Claim Without Prejudice by Judge Josephine L. Staton: 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. (jp)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Order to Show Cause, #12 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Rutherford)(Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton: 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. (See document for further information). (jp)
|
| Filing 11 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (mku) |
| Filing 10 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (mku) |
| Filing 9 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant John Taylor Pedicini(individually and as successor trustee of the Maria Pedicini Separate Property Trust Dated 12/12/2005). (esa) |
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint #1 as to defendant John Taylor Pedicini(individually and as trustee of the T & G Trust). (esa) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (esa) |
| 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-27863695 - 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.
