Khan v. Piercey North, Inc
| Reza Khan |
| Piercey Toyota (San Jose) doing business as Piercey North, Inc. and Piercey North, Inc. doing business as Piercey Toyota |
| 5:2020cv07750 |
| November 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Susan van Keulen |
| Lucy H Koh |
| Labor: Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1938 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 25, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Jarrod Jacobs (Jacobs, Mark) (Filed on 11/25/2020) |
| Filing 12 **CLERK'S NOTICE FOLLOWING CASE REASSIGNMENT TO THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH** Following the case reassignment to the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, an Initial Case Management Conference is set for February 17, 2021 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th floor, in San Jose, California. The Joint Case Management Statement is due seven days prior to the Initial Case Management Conference. See Civil L.R. 16-9 and Civil L.R. 16-10(a). The parties shall familiarize themselves with the Scheduling Notes and Standing Orders for the Hon. Lucy H. Koh: http://cand.uscourts.gov/lhk. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (kedS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2020) |
Filing 11
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Lucy H. Koh for all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen remains as referral judge assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 11/17/2020. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020)
|
| Filing 10 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. (jhfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020) |
| Filing 9 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Piercey North, Inc... (Alvarez, Christopher) (Filed on 11/17/2020) |
| Filing 8 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Reza Khan.. (Fisher, Matthew) (Filed on 11/11/2020) |
| Filing 7 Certificate of Interested Entities by Reza Khan identifying Other Affiliate Da Vega Fisher Mechtenberg LLP for Reza Khan. (Fisher, Matthew) (Filed on 11/11/2020) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Piercey Toyota (San Jose) re #2 Certificate of Interested Entities, #4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines,,, 3 Case Assigned by Intake,,, #1 Notice of Removal, #5 Certificate of Interested Entities (Alvarez, Christopher) (Filed on 11/3/2020) |
| Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Piercey Toyota (San Jose) re #1 Notice of Removal, (Alvarez, Christopher) (Filed on 11/3/2020) |
| Filing 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case may fall within the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Order 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. Case Management Statement due by 1/26/202 1. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/2/2021 09:30 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2020)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 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. 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. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 11/17/2020. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2020) |
| Filing 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Piercey Toyota (San Jose) identifying Corporate Parent Piercey Toyota, Other Affiliate Piercey North, Inc. for Piercey Toyota (San Jose). re #1 Notice of Removal, (Alvarez, Christopher) (Filed on 11/3/2020) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Their case number is 20CV370519. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0971-15147980). Filed byPiercey Toyota (San Jose). (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Christopher S. Alvarez ISO Defendant's, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Alvarez, Christopher) (Filed on 11/3/2020) |
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.
