Ramos v. Sidhu et al
Plaintiff: Oscar Ramos
Defendant: Swaran M. Sidhu and Harbachan K. Sidhu
Case Number: 2:2024cv00056
Filed: January 5, 2024
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Presiding Judge: Deborah Barnes
Referring Judge: John A Mendez
2 Judge: Troy L Nunley
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 22, 2024 Filing 8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: All Defendants. (Mac Bride, Richard)
January 14, 2024 Filing 7 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. (Mac Bride, Richard)
January 9, 2024 Filing 6 AMENDED CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Donati, J)
January 9, 2024 Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to the 4 Minute Order Reassigning Case, this action is Randomly REASSIGNED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley for all further proceedings. District Judge John A. Mendez is no longer associated with this case. The case number on all future filed documents shall be: 2:24-cv-0056 TLN DB. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY)(Donati, J)
January 8, 2024 Filing 4 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by M York Courtroom Deputy for Senior District Judge John A. Mendez on 01/08/2024: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to the senior status of District Judge John A. Mendez, the Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to reassign this case to another district judge for all further proceedings. Any hearing dates and deadlines previously set in this matter are VACATED. (cc: Sac. Operations Supervisor) (York, M)
January 8, 2024 Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 Order re Filing Requirements, #3 VDRP) (Clemente Licea, O)
January 8, 2024 Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Harbachan K. Sidhu, Swaran M. Sidhu* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Richard Mac Bride* *Law Offices of Richard Mac Bride* *855 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite 210* *Richmond, CA 94804*. (Clemente Licea, O)
January 5, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Oscar Ramos. Attorney Mac Bride, Richard added. (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACAEDC-11275578) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Mac Bride, Richard)

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: Ramos v. Sidhu et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Oscar Ramos
Represented By: Richard Mac Bride
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: Swaran M. Sidhu
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: Harbachan K. Sidhu
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?