Miao Yu v. McLaren Automotive, Inc. et al
| MIAO YU |
| MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and Does 1-100, Inclusive |
| 8:2023cv02375 |
| December 14, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Fred W Slaughter |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 8, 2024. 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 days, filed by Plaintiff Miao Yu.. (Rixit, Yoseph) |
| Filing 13 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Yoseph Rixit counsel for Plaintiff Miao Yu. Adding Yoseph Rixit as counsel of record for Miao Yu for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Miao Yu. (Attorney Yoseph Rixit added to party Miao Yu(pty:pla))(Rixit, Yoseph) |
Filing 12
ORDER SETTING RULE 26(f) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Fred W. Slaughter. Scheduling Conference set for 2/22/2024 at 9:00 a.m. See Order for details. (mku)
|
|
Filing 11
CIVIL STANDING ORDER by Judge Fred W. Slaughter. (mku)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge James V. Selna. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 23-05. Case randomly reassigned from Judge James V. Selna to Judge Fred W. Slaughter for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 8:23-cv-02375-FWS (ADSx). (et)
|
| Filing 9 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (car) |
| NON-CONFORMED COPY OF ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) filed by Defendant McLaren Automotive, Inc. Submitted with Attachment B to Notice of Errata #6 .(car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1-100, Inclusive, McLaren Automotive, Inc. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff Miao Yu. Filed in State Court on 11/15/2023 Submitted with Exhibit A to Notice of Errata #6 (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.. correcting Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 (Villegas, Daniel) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Incorrect State Court Complaint is attached. Attachment 2 Exhibit A is a State Court Complaint from Superior Court of CA for the County of Riverside Palm Springs Branch. In addition it is the incorrect plaintiff. (car) |
| Filing 4 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., identifying McLaren Group. (Villegas, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by Defendant MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC... (Villegas, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.. (Villegas, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange Coutny, case number 30-2023-01361311 Receipt No: ACACDC-36579022 - Fee: $405, filed by Defendant MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Daniel R. Villegas, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C) (Attorney Daniel R Villegas added to party MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.(pty:dft))(Villegas, Daniel) |
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.
