Hill v. The Scooter Store et al

Hill v. The Scooter Store et al

Case Number:	3:2006cv04740
Filed:	August 4, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office:	San Francisco Office
Presiding Judge:	Maxine M. Chesney
Nature of Suit:	Labor: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 22, 2006	Filing 15 ORDER NOTIFYING COUNSEL OF FAILURE TO REGISTER AS ECF USER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 22, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2006 (tl, COURT STAFF).
August 16, 2006	Filing 11 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Defendants shall show cause, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the action s hould not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that they have attached thereto certain documents, specifically, the complaint, summons, proof of service, and answer; none of those do cuments, however, is attached. Defendants are ordered to file, no later than August 25, 2006, a supplement to the Notice of Removal, attaching thereto those documents. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 16, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2006 (tl, COURT STAFF).

Date Filed

Document Text

August 22, 2006

Filing 15 ORDER NOTIFYING COUNSEL OF FAILURE TO REGISTER AS ECF USER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 22, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2006 (tl, COURT STAFF).

August 16, 2006

Filing 11 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Defendants shall show cause, in writing and no later than August 25, 2006, why the action s hould not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, defendants assert in the Notice of Removal that they have attached thereto certain documents, specifically, the complaint, summons, proof of service, and answer; none of those do cuments, however, is attached. Defendants are ordered to file, no later than August 25, 2006, a supplement to the Notice of Removal, attaching thereto those documents. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 16, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/23/2006 (tl, COURT STAFF).

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hill v. The Scooter Store et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?