Brandi Bagley v. The Sherwin-Williams Company
Plaintiff: Brandi Bagley
Defendant: The Sherwin-Williams Company
Case Number: 8:2022cv02061
Filed: November 10, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: James V Selna
Referring Judge: Autumn D Spaeth
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Fraud
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO (1) EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (2), CONTINUE THE FEBRUARY 27, 2023 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DATES AND DEADLINES #17 by Judge James V. Selna, re Stipulation #17 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint shall be filed by January 9, 2023; 2. Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by February 8, 2023; 3. The February 27, 2023 Scheduling Conference in this action is vacated and will be re-set to a date following the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and any subsequent motions to dismiss; and 4. All dates and deadlines associated with the February 27, 2023 Scheduling Conference, including the February 17, 2023 deadline for the Parties to file a joint status report, be vacated, to be re-set for dates associated with the rescheduled date for the Scheduling Conference. (bm)
December 19, 2022 Filing 17 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case #11 , Initial Order Setting R26 Scheduling Conference - form only #16 filed by Plainitff Brandi Bagley. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Gold, Sophia)
December 2, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference for 2/27/2023 at 10:30 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule 26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 2/17/2023. (lb)
November 22, 2022 Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Scott Edelsberg on behalf of Plaintiff Brandi Bagley (Attorney Scott Edelsberg added to party Brandi Bagley(pty:pla))(Edelsberg, Scott)
November 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: Granting #10 Non-Resident Attorney Sharyl A. Reisman APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company, designating Darren K Cottriel as local counsel. (et)
November 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: Granting #9 Non-Resident Attorney Louis A. Chaiten APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company, designating Darren K Cottriel as local counsel. (et)
November 17, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Louis A. Chaiten to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-34341904) #9 , APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Sharyl A. Reisman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-34342300) #10 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 5-4.3.4 Application not hand-signed. Other error(s) with document(s): The attorney seeking to appear pro hac vice must complete Section I of this Application, personally sign, in ink, the certification in Section II, and have the designated Local Counsel sign in Section III. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES ARE NOT ACCEPTED. See Instructions for Applicants (1). (lt)
November 17, 2022 Filing 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2023 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: #1 Plaintiff's Complaint, #2 Proposed Order) (Cottriel, Darren)
November 17, 2022 Filing 10 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Sharyl A. Reisman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-34342300) filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Cottriel, Darren)
November 17, 2022 Filing 9 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Louis A. Chaiten to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-34341904) filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Cottriel, Darren)
November 14, 2022 Filing 8 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA (lb)
November 10, 2022 Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et)
November 10, 2022 Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et)
November 10, 2022 Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (et)
November 10, 2022 Filing 4 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company, re Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 served on 11/10/2022. (Cottriel, Darren)
November 10, 2022 Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company, (Cottriel, Darren)
November 10, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. (Cottriel, Darren)
November 10, 2022 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2022-01279963-CU-FR-CXC Receipt No: ACACDC-34308130 - Fee: $402, filed by Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Ed Thompson ISO Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B) (Attorney Darren K Cottriel added to party The Sherwin-Williams Company(pty:dft))(Cottriel, Darren)
November 10, 2022 CONFORMED E-FILED COPY OF CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company. Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Brandi Bagley. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 9/9/2022 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT A AS ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ]. (et)
November 10, 2022 CONFORMED E-FILED COPY OF NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint returned Executed filed by Plaintiff Brandi Bagley, upon Defendant The Sherwin-Williams Company acknowledgment sent by Plaintiff on 9/21/2022, answer due 10/12/2022. Acknowledgment of Service signed by Lovis Chaiten, on behalf of The Sherwin-Williams Company. [FILED IN STATE COURT ON 10/11/2022 SUBMITTED ATTACHED TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ]. (et)

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 this case: Brandi Bagley v. The Sherwin-Williams Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Brandi Bagley
Represented By: Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel
Represented By: Sophia Goren Gold
Represented By: Scott Edelsberg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Sherwin-Williams Company
Represented By: Darren K Cottriel
Represented By: Louis A. Chaiten
Represented By: Sharyl A. Reisman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?