Parvaneh Imani v. MHM Services, Inc. et al
| Parvaneh Imani |
| MHM Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive |
| 8:2021cv01576 |
| September 24, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 5-7, filed by Defendant MHM Services, Inc... (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant MHM Services, Inc., re Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) - optional html form #8 , Notice to Counsel Re: Consent to Proceed before a US Magistrate Judge - optional html form #10 served on October 7, 2021. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 12 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by plaintiff Parvaneh Imani.. (Solmer, Thomas) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF INTENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Scheduling order to be issued on December 2, 2021. (rrp) |
| Filing 10 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (ghap) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Southern Division. Case has been assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Autumn D. Spaeth. New Case Number 8:21-cv-01576 CJC (ADS. (ghap) |
| NON CONFORM COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) filed by Defendant MHM Services, Inc. (SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT B)(ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, MHM Services, Inc. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Parvaneh Imani. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 8/4/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A) (ghap) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC., re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 served on September 24, 2021. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC.. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC., identifying Plaintiff, Parvaneh Imani; MHM Health Professionals, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MHM Services, Inc.; Defendant, MHM Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centene Corporation; Centene Corporation, a publicly held corporation that has no parent corporation, and no publicly held entity owns 10% or more of its stock; Solmer Law Corporation Counsel for Plaintiff Parvaneh Imani; and Littler Mendelson, P.C. Counsel for Defendant MHM Services, Inc.. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Dana Neitlich re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC.. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC.. (Zare, Arya) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2021-01213983 Receipt No: ACACDC-32044954 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant MHM SERVICES, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Attorney Arya Andrew Zare added to party MHM SERVICES, INC.(pty:dft))(Zare, Arya) |
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.
