Adam Ghadiri v. Main Auto Care Inc et al
| Adam Ghadiri |
| MAIN AUTO CARE INC, ANNY BITAR and BITAR GARY TR |
| 8:2023cv00446 |
| March 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fred W Slaughter |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The Court, having been notified by a Notice of Settlement #13 that the case settled, hereby orders this action dismissed without prejudice. The Court hereby orders all proceedings in the case vacated and taken off calendar. The Court retains jurisdiction for thirty (30) days to vacate this order and to reopen the action upon showing of good cause that the settlement has not been completed. Any outstanding Orders to Show Cause are discharged. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Settlement filed by plaintiff Adam Ghadiri. (Bakhos, Joseph) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIM #11 by Judge Fred W. Slaughter. Before the court is Plaintiff Adam Ghadiri's (Plaintiff) Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims (Response). (Dkt. #11 .) Thus, the court concludes that this case presents exceptional circumstances and that compelling reasons warrant declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims brought under state law. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Plaintiff's state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to any action filed in state court. (lom)
|
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Adam Ghadirito Order to Show Cause, #9 (Bakhos, Joseph) |
|
Filing 10
CIVIL STANDING ORDER by Judge Fred W. Slaughter. (mku)
|
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before March 23, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. [See document for further information.] (es)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Anny Bitar, Bitar Gary TR, Main Auto Care Inc. (car) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fred W. Slaughter and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (car) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Adam Ghadiri. (Attachments: #1 As to Main Auto, #2 As to Gary Bitar Trust)(Bakhos, Joseph) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Adam Ghadiri, identifying MAIN AUTO CARE INC, a corporation; ANNY BITAR, an individual; BITAR GARY TR, a trust. (Bakhos, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Adam Ghadiri. (Bakhos, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34939723 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Adam Ghadiri. (Attorney Joseph Bakhos added to party Adam Ghadiri(pty:pla))(Bakhos, Joseph) |
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.
