James Rutherford v. Rubana Ali et al
| JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual and James Rutherford |
| RUBANA ALI, an individual, RAMONA A. MARSHALL, individually and as custodian for TAURIE B. MARSHALL, SYED ALI, an individual, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, HAILEY K. MARSHALL, an individual, Rubana Ali, Does 1-10, inclusive, Ramona A. Marshall, Hailey K. Marshall and Syed Ali |
| 8:2020cv02200 |
| November 17, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| 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 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. Dismissal is With Prejudice. (Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 24
ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT, REMOVING CASE FROM ACTIVE CASELOAD, AND FILING OF DISMISSAL by Judge Josephine L. Staton. On 12/29/2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement (doc. #23 ), indicating that the case has fully settled. Based thereon, the Court hereby orders all proceedings in the case stayed and that this action is removed from the Court's active caseload. The parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal no later than 2/12/2021. Until the Dismissal Date, the Court retains full jurisdiction over this action. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (jp)
|
| Filing 23 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Plaintiff James Rutherford. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 22
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 21 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Hailey K. Marshall served on 12/26/2020, answer due 1/19/2021. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Syed Ali served on 12/17/2020, answer due 1/7/2021. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Rubana Ali served on 12/3/2020, answer due 12/24/2020. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff James Rutherford, upon Defendant Ramona A. Marshall served on 12/14/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Manning, Joseph) |
| Filing 17 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff James Rutherfordto Order to Show Cause, #16 (Attachments: #1 Declaration of JRM, #2 Declaration of Rutherford)(Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 16
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 15 Notice to Parties: ADA Disability Access Litigation. (mku) |
| Filing 14 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (mku) |
| Filing 13 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Hailey K. Marshall. (lh) |
| Filing 12 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Ramona A. Marshall. (lh) |
| Filing 11 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Syed Ali. (lh) |
| Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Rubana Ali. (lh) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (lh) |
| 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-29059557 - 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.
