(PS) Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort
Plaintiff: Hung M. Nguyen
Defendant: Cache Creek Casino Resort
Case Number: 2:2020cv01748
Filed: August 31, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Presiding Judge: Kendall J Newman
Referring Judge: Troy L Nunley
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 15, 2020 Filing 16 USCA ORDER DISMISSING #7 Notice of Appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
October 15, 2020 SERVICE BY MAIL: 13 Minute Order, #14 Summons and #15 Civil New Case Documents served on Hung M. Nguyen. (Donati, J)
October 15, 2020 Filing 15 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 3/11/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Donati, J)
October 15, 2020 Filing 14 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Cache Creek Casino Resort* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Hung M. Nguyen* *131 Sunset Avenue, E 128* *Suisun City, CA 94585*. (Donati, J)
October 15, 2020 Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/15/2020: Pursuant to the district courts order (ECF No. #10 ) and plaintiffs first payment toward the filing fee (ECF No. #11 ), the clerk of the court is directed to issue the appropriate service documents, scheduling order, and consent documents for this civil case. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Waldrop, A)
October 13, 2020 Filing 12 REQUEST COURT NOTIFY STATE and LOCAL AGENCY of FEDERAL STAY by Hung M. Nguyen. (Becknal, R) Modified on 10/23/2020 (Benson, A.).
October 13, 2020 Filing 11 NOTICE by Hung M. Nguyen re monthly payments. (Becknal, R)
October 13, 2020 RECEIPT number #CAE200109539 $50.00 fbo Hung M. Nguyen by Hung M. Nguyen on 10/13/2020. (Huang, H)
October 7, 2020 SERVICE BY MAIL: #10 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and served on Hung M. Nguyen. (Coll, A)
October 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/6/2020 ADOPTING #5 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP; DIRECTING plaintiff to pay the applicable filing fee of $400, on a monthly payment plan of $50 per month, due on the first day of each month, with the first payment to be made by 11/1/2020. Once the first payment of $50 is made, the magistrate judge may direct the Clerk of the Court to issue the appropriate service documents and scheduling orders. (Coll, A)
September 14, 2020 Filing 9 USCA CASE NUMBER 20-16768 for #7 Notice of Appeal filed by Hung M. Nguyen. (York, M)
September 11, 2020 SERVICE BY MAIL: #8 Appeal Processed to USCA served on Hung M. Nguyen. (Coll, A)
September 11, 2020 Filing 8 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re #7 Notice of Appeal filed by Hung M. Nguyen. Notice of Appeal filed *9/10/2020*, Complaint filed *8/31/2020* and Appealed Order / Judgment filed *9/4/2020*. ** *Fee Status: IFP Pending* (Attachments: #1 Appeal Information) (Coll, A)
September 10, 2020 Filing 7 NOTICE of APPEAL by Hung M. Nguyen as to #5 Order. (Coll, A)
September 10, 2020 Filing 6 CONSENT to #5 Findings and Recommendations by Hung M. Nguyen. (Coll, A)
September 4, 2020 SERVICE BY MAIL: #5 Order and Findings and Recommendations, served on Hung M. Nguyen. (Kaminski, H)
September 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/3/20 ORDERING that #3 Request to electronically file is DENIED. RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. Plaintiffs be ordered to pay the applicable filing fee on a monthly payment plan. Plaintiff be informed that a failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an extension of time to do so, may result in dismissal. F&R referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)
September 1, 2020 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP filed - Action Required. (Coll, A)
August 31, 2020 Filing 4 CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Coll, A)
August 31, 2020 Filing 3 REQUEST to FILE ELECTRONICALLY by Hung M. Nguyen. (Coll, A)
August 31, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Hung M. Nguyen. (Coll, A)
August 31, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Cache Creek Casino Resort by Hung M. Nguyen. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Coll, A)

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 this case: (PS) Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Hung M. Nguyen
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: Cache Creek Casino Resort
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.


Why Is My Information Online?