Brown v. Janus of Santa Cruz
| Nick Brown |
| Janus of Santa Cruz |
| 5:2021cv00094 |
| January 6, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Virginia K DeMarchi |
| Beth Labson Freeman |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #14 First MOTION to Remand ) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence (Presented in Plaintiff's Reply), in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand filed byJanus of Santa Cruz. (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 3/5/2021)
|
|
Filing 20
REPLY (re #14 First MOTION to Remand ) filed byNick Brown. (DuVan-Clarke, Barbara) (Filed on 2/26/2021)
|
|
Filing 19
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #14 First MOTION to Remand ) filed byJanus of Santa Cruz. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Marianne Buckley in Support of Notice of Removal and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Remand)(Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 2/19/2021)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER GRANTING #17 MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/18/2021.(blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2021)
|
|
Filing 17
MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by Nick Brown. (DuVan-Clarke, Barbara) (Filed on 2/18/2021)
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER STRIKING #15 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed with Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/16/2021. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2021)
|
|
Filing 15
Proposed Order Granting Substitution of Attorney by Nick Brown. (Kramer, Jennifer) (Filed on 2/13/2021)
|
|
Filing 14
First MOTION to Remand filed by Nick Brown. Motion Hearing set for 7/15/2021 09:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Responses due by 2/19/2021. Replies due by 2/26/2021. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Kramer, Jennifer) (Filed on 2/5/2021)
|
|
Filing 13
CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AFTER REASSIGNMENT. Case Management Statement due by 5/13/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/20/2021 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2021)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Beth Labson Freeman 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 Virginia K. DeMarchi remains as referral judge assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 1/27/2021. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2021)
|
|
Filing 11
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. (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2021)
|
|
Filing 10
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Nick Brown.. (DuVan-Clarke, Barbara) (Filed on 1/27/2021)
|
|
Filing 9
CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs 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 2/8/2021. (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2021) Modified on 1/25/2021 (pmcS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 8
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Janus of Santa Cruz.. (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/20/2021)
|
|
Filing 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Janus of Santa Cruz re #1 Notice of Removal,, (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/19/2021)
|
|
Filing 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Janus of Santa Cruz re #5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, 4 Case Assigned by Intake,,, #1 Notice of Removal,, (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/7/2021)
|
|
Filing 5
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 3/30/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/6/2021 01:30 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor. (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2021)
|
|
Filing 4
Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. 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 1/20/2021. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2021)
|
|
Filing 3
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Janus of Santa Cruz (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/6/2021)
|
|
Filing 2
Certificate of Interested Entities by Janus of Santa Cruz (Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/6/2021)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0971-15409158). Filed byJanus of Santa Cruz. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Declaration of Rudy Escalante in Support of Defendant Janus of Santa Cruz's Notice of Removal, #3 Declaration of Marianne Buckley in Support of Defendant Janus of Santa Cruz's Notice of Removal, #4 Declaration of Patrick Stokes in Support of Defendant Janus of Santa Cruz's Notice of Removal)(Stokes, Patrick) (Filed on 1/6/2021)
|
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: Brown v. Janus of Santa Cruz | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Janus of Santa Cruz | |
| Represented By: | Patrick Colin Stokes |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Nick Brown | |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Rue Kramer |
| Represented By: | Barbara DuVan-Clarke |
| 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.
