Concepcion Castillo Vasque v. Hyatt Corporation et al.
| CONCEPCION CASTILLO VASQUE |
| HYATT CORPORATION, Hyatt Corporation a corporation doing business as Hyatt Regence Orange County and Does 1-50, inclusive |
| 8:2022cv00748 |
| April 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION ON NOTICE OFSETTLEMENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, having been notified by a Notice of Settlement #12 that the case settled hereby orders this action dismissed without prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lom)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Settlement (Joint) filed by defendant Hyatt Corporation. (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, Granting Joint Stipulation to Continue the Initial Scheduling Order #10 . The Scheduling Order currently set to be issued on June 2, 2022, is hereby vacated and continued to July 21, 2022. (twdb)
|
| Filing 10 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Initial Scheduling Order from June 2, 2022 to July 18, 2022 Re: Initial Order upon Filing of Complaint - form only #9 filed by defendant Hyatt Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF INTENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Scheduling order to be issued on June 2, 2022. (rrp) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJDAP case from Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick to Judge Cormac J. Carney for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judges 8:22-cv-00748 CJC(ADSx). (rn) |
| Filing 7 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Defendant Hyatt Corporation. (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Compliance With 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) filed by Defendant Hyatt Corporation. (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (sh) |
| NON-CONFORMED FILED COPY OF ANSWER TO COMPLAINT filed by Defendant Hyatt Corporation. [SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT B TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ](sh) |
| CONFORMED E-FILE COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, Hyatt Corporation. Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Concepcion Castillo Vasque. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 02/14/2022 SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT A TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ] (sh) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant HYATT CORPORATION, (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant HYATT CORPORATION (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant HYATT CORPORATION. (Crisp, Caitlyn) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2022-01245425 Receipt No: ACACDC-33056870 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant HYATT CORPORATION. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - B, #2 Declaration OF CAITLYN M. CRISP, #3 Declaration OF CHRISTINA URBANSKI, #4 Declaration OF DANIEL STRITTMATTER) (Attorney Caitlyn M Crisp added to party HYATT CORPORATION(pty:dft))(Crisp, Caitlyn) |
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.
