Rodriguez v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. et al
| Valentina Rodriguez |
| Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. and Jeffrey Delport |
| 1:2024cv00061 |
| January 12, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Christopher D Baker |
| Jennifer L Thurston |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 REPLY by Valentina Rodriguez re #10 Motion to Remand,. (LaCour, Jonathan) |
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) Pursuant to Local Rule 302, the filed motion to remand #10 will be heard and decided by the undersigned. As set forth in the Court's standing order, no hearing will be calendared, and the matter will be decided on the papers. As a result of the ongoing judicial resource emergency in this District, approximately 100 regular civil motions remain under submission before the undersigned. As a result, it is likely to be six or more months until the motion(s) in this matter is resolved. The Court reiterates that magistrate judge consent can alleviate the delay caused by the resource emergency. The parties SHALL reconsider magistrate judge consent for all purposes or only for this pending motion. In addition, the parties are reminded of their ongoing obligation to inform the Court of any changed circumstances that have rendered all or part of any pending motion moot. Finally, the parties are informed that the undersigned generally requires a formal settlement conference take place before any civil case proceeds to trial. Should the parties jointly wish to schedule a settlement conference, they are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Irma Munoz at imunoz@caed.uscourts.gov signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on March 1, 2024. (Munoz, I)
|
| Filing 11 OPPOSITION by Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. to #10 Motion to Remand,. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Kim, Sylvia) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to REMAND Case to Superior Court for the State of California, County of Kern by Valentina Rodriguez. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2024 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Counsel In Support Of Motion to Remand, #2 Proposed Order Proposed Order granting Motion to Remand)(LaCour, Jonathan) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/19/2024: For good cause shown, the parties' stipulated request to continue Defendants' deadline to respond to the operative complaint and set the date by which Plaintiff shall file any motion to remand (Doc. #5 ) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. Plaintiff SHALL FILE any motion to remand no later than February 12, 2024. Unless Plaintiff timely files a motion to remand, Defendants SHALL FILE a response to the operative complaint no later than March 11, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). If Plaintiff timely files a motion to remand, the deadline by which Defendants shall respond to the operative complaint is continued to a date 28 days following the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand. (Yang, Pa Gnia)
|
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/19/2024: For Plaintiff's timely response (Doc. #7 ) to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 6 ), the Court finds good cause to discharge and HEREBY ORDERS that the Court's Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Yang, Pa Gnia)
|
| Filing 7 DECLARATION of Lisa Sidney Noveck. (Noveck, Lisa) |
|
Filing 6
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 1/18/2024: By her signature to the pending stipulation for order extending Defendants' time to respond to the complaint (Doc. #5 ), counsel for Plaintiff Lisa Noveck is engaged in unauthorized practice before the Court. See Local Rule 180. Accordingly, within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for violation of this Court's Local Rules and unauthorized practice by an unadmitted attorney. See Local Rule 180(d). In the alternative, by that same deadline, Plaintiff may comply with this Order with counsel's submission to the Clerk of the Court of a petition for admission. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions. (Yang, Pa Gnia)
|
| Filing 5 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for To Continue Defendants Responsive Pleading Deadline Pending Potential Motion To Remand by Jeffrey Delport, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kim, Sylvia) |
| Filing 4 CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorneys Jonathan LaCour and Lisa Noveck: You are not admitted to practice in the Eastern District of California. Please visit PACER to apply for admission in this district. (Maldonado, C) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 4/9/2024 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield (CDB) before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. (Attachments: #1 CDB Worksheet, #2 Standing Order, #3 Consent Form, #4 VDRP) (Maldonado, C) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Jeffrey Delport, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.. (Kim, Sylvia) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-23-103666 by Valentina Rodriguez. (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACAEDC-11288978) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kim, Sylvia) |
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 Eastern 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.
