(PS)Loftus v. AT&T, Inc.
| Robert C. Loftus, Jr. |
| AT&T, Inc. |
| 2:2018cv02866 |
| October 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Deborah Barnes |
| Troy L Nunley |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable,-Not Deliverable as Addressed-Unable to Forward-RTS: #6 Pro Hac Vice Order sent to Robert C. Loftus, Jr. Notice of Change of Address due by 2/25/2019. (York, M) |
| Filing 7 LETTER from Robert C. Loftus, Jr. (Mena-Sanchez, L) |
| MAIL RETURNED as Not Deliverable as addressed: #5 Order to Show Cause, sent to Robert C. Loftus Jr.. (Mena-Sanchez, L) |
Filing 6
PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/6/2018 ADDING attorney Daniel M. Combs, PHV for AT&T, Inc. (Washington, S)
|
| SERVICE BY MAIL: #6 Pro Hac Vice Order served on Robert C. Loftus Jr. (Washington, S) |
| RECEIPT number CAE200094318 for $225.00 for Pro Hac Vice for Daniel M. Combs. (Zignago, K.) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/26/2018 DIRECTING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing within 14 days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and CONTINUING Hearing on #3 Motion for More Definite Statement to Friday, 1/11/2019, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 27 (DB), before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (York, M)
|
| SERVICE BY MAIL: #5 Order served on Robert C. Loftus Jr. (York, M) |
| Filing 4 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by AT&T, Inc. for attorney Daniel Combs to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Nowinski, Alexander) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT & ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS by AT&T, Inc. Motion Hearing SET for 11/30/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. (Nowinski, Alexander) Modified on 11/7/2018 (Mena-Sanchez, L). |
| Filing 2 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Reader, L) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Amador County Superior Court, case number 18SC3661 by AT&T, Inc. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-7940221) (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Alexander L. Nowinski, #2 Corporate Disclosure Statement, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nowinski, Alexander) |
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
| Search for this case: (PS)Loftus v. AT&T, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robert C. Loftus, Jr. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: AT&T, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Alexander Larsen Nowinski |
| Represented By: | Daniel M. Combs, PHV |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
