Spano v. Lyft, Inc.
| Laurie Spano |
| Lyft, Inc. |
| 3:2024cv00799 |
| February 9, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Thomas S Hixson |
| Araceli Martinez-Olguin |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Certificate of Interested Entities by Lyft, Inc. (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 3/11/2024) |
| Filing 13 STIPULATION to Extend Time for Lyft, Inc. to Respond to Complaint filed by Lyft, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Warren Metlitzky in Support of Stipulation to Extend Time for Lyft, Inc. to Respond to Complaint)(Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 3/8/2024) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Warren Metlitzky (Metlitzky, Warren) (Filed on 3/8/2024) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Laurie Spano. Lyft, Inc. served on 2/22/2024, answer due 3/14/2024. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 3/4/2024) |
| Filing 10 Clerk's Notice on Reassignment. You are noticed that the Court has scheduled an Initial Case Management Conference before Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin upon reassignment. For a copy of Judge Martinez-Olguin's Standing Order and other information, please refer to the Court's website at #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/martinez-olguin-araceli-amo/. Case Management Statement due by 5/2/2024 no later than 12:00 PM PST. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/9/2024 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 10, 19th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ads, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2024) |
Filing 9
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Clerk on 02/20/2024. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(mbc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2024)
|
| Filing 8 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2024) |
| Filing 7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Laurie Spano.. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 2/19/2024) |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to Lyft, Inc. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
| Filing 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 5/2/2024. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/9/2024 10:00 AM. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
| Filing 4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 2/23/2024. (ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
| Filing 3 Certificate of Interested Entities by Laurie Spano (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Lyft, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACANDC-19111015.). Filed by Laurie Spano. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 2/9/2024) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Spano v. Lyft, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Laurie Spano | |
| Represented By: | Rachel Beth Abrams |
| Represented By: | Adam B. Wolf |
| 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: Lyft, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Warren Metlitzky |
| 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.
