Diaz v. Starbucks Corporation, et al
| Andrea Diaz |
| Starbucks Corporation and Mariko Doe |
| 4:2022cv07625 |
| December 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Donna M Ryu |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 THIRD CLERK'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: #http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (Plaintiff's Counsel was also notified via email.) Consent/Declination due by 2/3/20 23. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 6 SECOND CLERK'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: #http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 1/18/2023. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2023) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: #http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 1/3/2023. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) |
| Filing 4 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Starbucks Corporation.. (Caleo, Paul) (Filed on 12/19/2022) |
| Filing 3 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 3/22/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/29/2023 at 1:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. (jlg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2022) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. 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 12/19/2022. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2022) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Alameda County Superior Court. Their case number is 22CV010661. (Filing fee $402 receipt number ACANDC-17781718). Filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Caleo, Paul) (Filed on 12/2/2022) |
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
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.