Samuel Jorg Kreitl v. County of Orange et al
| Samuel Jorg Kreitl |
| Christopher Quenault, County of Orange, Gregory Fisher and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 8:2020cv02309 |
| December 7, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 13, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 with JURY DEMAND filed by DEFENDANTS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, GREGORY FISHER AND CHRISTOPHER QUENAULT County of Orange.(Schwartz, Zachary) |
Filing 17
ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#OCJ 20-202) approved by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Pursuant to the recommended procedure adopted by the Court for the CREATION OF CALENDAR of Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, this case is transferred from Judge Cormac J. Carney to the calendar of Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 8:20-cv-02309-FLA-ADSx. (aco)
|
| Filing 16 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, filed by DEFENDANTS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, DEPUTY GREGORY FISHER and DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER QUENAULT County of Orange.(Attorney Zachary M Schwartz added to party County of Orange(pty:dft))(Schwartz, Zachary) |
| Filing 15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jamie Ross, designated by law to accept service of process in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons returned. Service of Process Executed upon Defendant County of Orange (Sehat, Cameron) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jeff Duetch, designated by law to accept service of process in compliance with statute not specified by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed.Original Summons returned. Service of Process Executed upon Defendant Gregory Fisher (Sehat, Cameron) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Christopher Quenault in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Sehat, Cameron) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER STRIKING PROOFS OF SERVICE (DKT. #8 #9 and #10 ) by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The documents are STRICKEN pursuant to Clerk's Notice of Deficiency at Dkt. #11 ; counsel are ordered to re-file in compliance with the Local Rules and correcting the deficiencies cited. (cw)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), #8 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), #9 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), #10 . The following error(s) was/were found: Title page is missing. Signature line is blank. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (twdb) |
| Filing 10 [STRICKEN] PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant Christopher Quenault served on 12/11/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Christopher Quenault in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Sehat, Cameron) Modified on 12/16/2020 (cw). |
| Filing 9 [STRICKEN] PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant Gregory Fisher served on 12/11/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jeff Duetch, designated by law to accept service of process in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Sehat, Cameron) Modified on 12/16/2020 (cw). |
| Filing 8 [STRICKEN] PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, upon Defendant County of Orange served on 12/11/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jamie Ross, designated by law to accept service of process in compliance with statute not specified by personal service.Original Summons returned. (Sehat, Cameron) Modified on 12/16/2020 (cw). |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants County of Orange, Gregory Fisher and Christopher Quenault. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl, (Sehat, Cameron) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl. (Sehat, Cameron) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl. (Sehat, Cameron) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-29394043 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Samuel Jorg Kreitl. (Attorney Cameron Sehat added to party Samuel Jorg Kreitl(pty:pla))(Sehat, Cameron) |
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.
