Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee v. Estate of Kevin L. Darney
Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee |
Estate of Kevin L. Darney and Brian Darney |
8:2021cv00023 |
January 6, 2021 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Karen E Scott |
Josephine L Staton |
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
05 U.S.C. ยง 704 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commiteeto Order to Show Cause, #12 Re: Dismissal (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee. upon Estate of Kevin L. Darney waiver sent by Plaintiff on 1/25/2021, answer due 3/26/2021. Waiver of Service signed by Brian Darney. (Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 12 MINUTES (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 2/25/2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (See document for further information). (jp) |
Filing 11 SERVICE UNDER FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) Executed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee, upon Defendant Brian Darney served on 1/25/2021, answer due 2/16/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the Clerks Office in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 10 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Brian Darney, Estate of Kevin L. Darney. (jp) |
Filing 9 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (mku) |
Filing 8 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee. (Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request filed as Complaint #2 . The following error(s) was found: The Summons Request was filed under the incorrect event. The correct event is: Civil Events > Service Documents > Service/Waivers of Summons and Complaints > Summons Request. Please utilize CM/ECF resources such as the search tool to locate the appropriate events for filing. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (jtil) |
Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (jtil) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee, (Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee. (Tutt, Antoinette) |
Filing 2 [SUMMONS REQUEST FILED BY COUNSEL AS COMPLAINT] with filing fee previously paid ($402.00 paid on 01/06/2021, receipt number 29903417), filed by plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee.(Tutt, Antoinette) Modified on 1/7/2021 (jtil). |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-29903417 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee. (Attorney Antoinette R Tutt added to party Southern California Edison Company Benefits Commitee(pty:pla))(Tutt, Antoinette) |
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.