Young K Choi v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. et al
| Young K Choi |
| Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 8:2023cv02376 |
| December 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Karen E Scott |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Suoerior Court for California, County of Orange filed by Plaintiff Young K Choi. Motion set for hearing on 3/11/2024 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF YOUNG K. CHOIS MOTION TO REMAND, #2 Declaration DECLARATION OF YOONIS HAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND, #3 Declaration DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF YOUNG K. CHOI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND) (Han, Yoonis) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF INTENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Scheduling order to be issued on February 29, 2024. (rrp) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) CONFORMED COPY filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc..(Oswald, Bree) |
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION (REMOVAL) by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing on or before January 3, 2024 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by Plaintiff, the Court will consider as an appropriate response to this OSC the filing of one of the following on or before the above date: 1. A response to the Complaint by all Defendants; 2. An application for the entry of default pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as to all Defendants, or 3. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to all Defendants. (lom) (lom).
|
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (car) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. Jury Demanded, filed by Plaintiff Young K Choi. Filed in State Court on 11/2/2023 Submitted with Attachment 1 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., identifying Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Walmart Inc.. (Oswald, Bree) |
| Filing 4 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO Petition for Removal filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Oswald, Bree) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Bree A. Oswald re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Oswald, Bree) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.. (Oswald, Bree) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2023-01360699-CU-WT-CJC Receipt No: ACACDC-36579831 - Fee: $405, filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Attorney Bree A Oswald added to party Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (pty:dft))(Oswald, Bree) |
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.
