Poupak Barekat v. The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership et al
| POUPAK BAREKAT, an individual, and Poupak Barekat |
| THE SALISBURY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Does 1-10, inclusive and The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership |
| 8:2020cv02225 |
| November 23, 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. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekat. Dismissal is with prejudice. (Manning, Joseph) |
Filing 13
ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT, REMOVING CASE FROM ACTIVE CASELOAD, AND FILING OF DISMISSAL by Judge Josephine L. Staton. On 1/22/2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement (Doc. #12 ), 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 Courts active caseload. The parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal no later than 3/8/2021. Until the Dismissal Date, the Court retains full jurisdiction over this action. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (jp)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekat. (Manning, Joseph) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT UPON RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment Discovery pursuant to General Order 05-07. Case randomly reassigned from Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott to Magistrate Judge John D. Early for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 8:20-cv-02225 JLS(JDEx). (rn)
|
| Filing 10 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership.(Attorney Mark B Frazier added to party The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership(pty:dft))(Frazier, Mark) |
| Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Poupak Barekat, upon Defendant The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership served on 12/17/2020, answer due 1/7/2021. 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 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 The Salisbury Family Limited Partnership. (lh) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (lh) |
| 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-29163749 - 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.
