Poupak Barekat v. Bonnie Doone, LLC et al
| POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual, and Poupak Barekat |
| BONNIE DOONE, LLC, a California limited liability company;, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Does 1-10, inclusive and Bonnie Doone, LLC |
| 8:2020cv02175 |
| November 12, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John D Early |
| 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 January 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekat. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: In light of the Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause #13 , Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Settlement no later than 1/15/2021. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mku) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekatto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, #12 (Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show cause in writing no later than January 8, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiffs, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: Answer to the Complaint; Request for Entry of Default; or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (F.R.Civ.P. 41 ). See minute order for further information. (lom)
|
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekat, upon Defendant Bonnie Doone, LLC served on 12/10/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. 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 10 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Bonnie Doone, LLC answer now due 1/4/2021, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by defendant Bonnie Doone, LLC.(Attorney Catherine Joanne Weinberg added to party Bonnie Doone, LLC(pty:dft))(Weinberg, Catherine) |
| Filing 9 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (mku) |
| Filing 8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (mku) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Bonnie Doone, LLC. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton 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 POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual,. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual,. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual,, (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-28979071 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiff POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual,. (Attorney Joseph Richard Manning, Jr added to party POUPAK BAREKAT, 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.
