Fareen Azmi v. General Motors LLC et al
| Fareen Azmi |
| General Motors LLC and Does 1 through 10 inclusive |
| 8:2023cv02477 |
| December 28, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| R Gary Klausner |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Product Liability |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 17, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Orange County Superior Court. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Orange County Superior Court - West Justice Center at Westminster. Case number: 30-02023-01363361-CU-BC-WJC. (jp) |
Filing 15
(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Amount in Controversy [DE #1 ] by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Defendant has not satisfied its burden of plausibly alleging that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action to state court for all further proceedings. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Defendant General Motors LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Amount in Controversy, #2 Exhibit 2 to Response to Order to Show Cause Re: Amount in Controversy)(Park, Steven) |
| Filing 13 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities #7 filed by Plaintiff Fareen Azmi. (Marden, Ryan) |
|
Filing 12
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Amount in Controversy [DE #1 ] by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Defendant has not satisfied its burden of plausibly alleging that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to show cause in writing why the jurisdictional requirements are or are not satisfied. Such a response shall not exceed five pages and must be submitted within fourteen days of this Order's issuance. (jp)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/5/2024. Scheduling Conference set for 2/12/2024 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (jre)
|
|
Filing 10
STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (jre)
|
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Defendant General Motors LLC, re Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Notice to Counsel (CV-20a) Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program - optional html form #5 , Complaint - (Discovery), Corporate Disclosure Statement #4 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 served on January 5, 2024. (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJDAP case from Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott to Judge R. Gary Klausner for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judges 8:23-CV-02477-RGK-DFMx. (aco) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's Complaint ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. Motion set for hearing on 2/6/2024 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Proposed Order Granting Defendant General Motors, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, #3 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant General Motors LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, #4 Proposed Order Granting Defendant General Motors LLC's Request for Judicial Notice) (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 6 ELECTION REGARDING CONSENT to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge Declined, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636c filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. The Defendant does not consent. (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (sh) |
| CONFORMED EFILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, General Motors LLC., filed by Plaintiff Fareen Azmi. [STATE COURT FILE DATE NOT LEGIBLE SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT A TO THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ] (sh) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant General Motors LLC identifying General Motors Company as Corporate Parent. (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant General Motors LLC, (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. (Park, Steven) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2023-01363361-CU-BC-WJC Receipt No: ACACDC-36642367 - Fee: $405, filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit B to Notice of Removal, #3 Declaration of Eric Mitchell in Support of Notice of Removal of Entire Case, #4 Exhibit A to Declaration of Eric Mitchell, #5 Exhibit B to Declaration of Eric Mitchell, #6 Exhibit C to Declaration of Eric Mitchell) (Attorney Steven D Park added to party General Motors LLC(pty:dft))(Park, Steven) |
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.
