Lingle v. Centimark Corporation
Plaintiff: Anthony Lingle
Defendant: Centimark Corporation
Case Number: 2:2022cv01471
Filed: August 19, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
Presiding Judge: Jeremy D Peterson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 7, 2022 Filing 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Centimark Corporation by Anthony Lingle.(Rodriguez, Justin)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 09/26/22 CONTINUING the Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to 10/07/23. (Licea Chavez, V)
September 23, 2022 Filing 14 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Anthony Lingle. (Konini, Renald)
September 23, 2022 Filing 13 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Renald Konini on behalf of Anthony Lingle. Attorney Konini, Renald added. (Konini, Renald) Modified on 9/23/2022 (Benson, A.).
September 23, 2022 Filing 12 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for EOT Respond to FAC or SAC by Centimark Corporation. (Smith, Paul)
August 29, 2022 Filing 11 DECLARATION of Ariel Kumpinsky re #1 Notice of Removal. (Smith, Paul)
August 26, 2022 Filing 10 STIPULATION to EXTEND TIME to RESPOND to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Centimark Corporation. (Smith, Paul) Modified on 8/29/2022 (Kaminski, H).
August 23, 2022 Filing 9 NOTICE of COMPLIANCE w-USDC 1446(d) by Centimark Corporation. (Smith, Paul)
August 23, 2022 Filing 8 CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Centimark Corporation re #7 Civil New Case Documents for Magistrate as Presider. (Smith, Paul)
August 22, 2022 Filing 7 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Kaminski, H)
August 19, 2022 Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of INTERESTED PARTIES by Centimark Corporation. (Smith, Paul).
August 19, 2022 Filing 5 DECLARATION of Paul M. Smith re #1 Notice of Removal. (Smith, Paul)
August 19, 2022 Filing 4 DECLARATION of Landon Connolly re #1 Notice of Removal. (Smith, Paul)
August 19, 2022 Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendant Centimark Corporation. (Smith, Paul)
August 19, 2022 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Centimark Corporation (Smith, Paul)
August 19, 2022 Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Sacramento County Superior Court, case number 34-2021-0031191 by Centimark Corporation. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-10391484) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Smith, Paul).

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: Lingle v. Centimark Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anthony Lingle
Represented By: Galen T. Shimoda
Represented By: Jessica Lynne Hart
Represented By: Justin Paul Rodriguez
Represented By: Renald Konini
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: Centimark Corporation
Represented By: Paul M. Smith
Represented By: Michael John Nader
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?