Ramsey v. City of Rancho Cordova et al
Charles Ramsey |
City of Rancho Cordova and County of Sacramento |
2:2023cv02178 |
October 2, 2023 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Deborah Barnes |
Dale A Drozd |
Civil Rights: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 REPLY by City of Rancho Cordova re #8 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss/Strike. (Boelter, Megan) Modified on 11/20/2023 (Benson, A.). |
Filing 11 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/13/2023 ORDERING that an Initial Scheduling Conference is SET for 2/2/2024 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before 1/19/2024. (Mena-Sanchez, L) |
Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/13/2023: Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending #7 Motion is SUBMITTED without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 12/5/2023 is VACATED, to be reset at a later date if the court determines that oral argument is needed.(Buzo, P) |
Filing 9 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/9/2023: The Initial Scheduling Conference previously set for 2/27/2024 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Dale A. Drozd is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the setting of an Initial Scheduling Conference is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge. The parties' shall file their joint scheduling report no later than fourteen (14) days before the new Initial Scheduling Conference date set before the assigned Magistrate Judge. (Buzo, P) |
Filing 8 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Charles Ramsey to #8 Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order , #2 Proof of Service , #3 Proof of Service)(Arrasmith, James) Modified on 11/8/2023 (Benson, A.). |
Filing 7 MOTION to DISMISS/MOTION to STRIKE by City of Rancho Cordova. Motion Hearing set for 12/5/2023 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration of Megan N. Boelter)(Camy, William) |
Filing 6 AMENDED CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/27/2024 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order, #2 Consent Form, #3 VDRP) (Benson, A.) |
Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE (TEXT ONLY). This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. The new case number is: 2:23-cv-2178 DAD DB. (Benson, A.) |
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. (Cahill, Nicole) |
Filing 3 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading by City of Rancho Cordova. Attorney Boelter, Megan Nicole added. (Boelter, Megan) |
Filing 2 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Reader, L) |
Filing 1 NOTICE of REMOVAL from Sacramento County Superior Court, case number 23CV004933 by City of Rancho Cordova. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-11107800) (Attachments:#1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Camy, William) |
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.