Doe v. Jefferies et al
| Jane Doe |
| Manuel Perez, Michael Helstvin, Chuck Washington, Dustin Lloyd, JF Tavaglione, Does 1-50, Kevin Jefferies, Stan Sniff, Michael Helstrin and Marion Ashley |
| 3:2018cv02021 |
| August 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Jan M Adler |
| Michael M Anello |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 in |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Amended SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe. Kevin Jefferies served. (rmc) |
| Filing 10 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re #6 Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies. Mail sent to Jane Doe. (rmc) |
Filing 9
ORDER Denying #5 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; Denying #7 Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement Date and Judgment. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for default judgment without prejudice. In light of the current procedural posture of the case, the Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference and judgment. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/17/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
|
| Filing 8 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re #4 Notice and Order of Document Discrepancies. Mail sent to Jane Doe. (rmc) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Settlement Date, MOTION for Judgment of 1.3M Dollars by Jane Doe. Nunc Pro Tunc 10/9/2018. (rmc) |
| Filing 6 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by the Chambers of Judge Michael M. Anello Accepting Document: Request for Settlement Date and Judgment of 1.3M Dollars, from Plaintiff Jane Doe. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation, Civ. L. Rule 7.1: Lacking memorandum of points and authorities in support as a separate document, Civ.L. Rule 5.2: Missing Proof of Service. Nunc Pro Tunc 10/9/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Default Judgment against Defendants by Jane Doe. Nunc Pro Tunc 10/2/2018. (rmc) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by the Chambers of Judge Michael M. Anello Accepting Document: Motion to Enter Default Judgment Pursuant to R. 55, from Plaintiff Jane Doe. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation, Civ. L.R. 55.1: Clerk's Default must be entered prior to Motion for Default Judgment. Nunc Pro Tunc 10/2/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc) |
| Filing 3 Amended Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. Summons has been provided to plaintiffs not receiving notice electronically. (mtr) (mdc) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. Summons has been provided to plaintiffs not receiving notice electronically. (jrm) (jao). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Does 1-50, Michael Helstvin, Kevin Jefferies, Dustin Lloyd, Manuel Perez, Stan Sniff, JF Tavaglione, Chuck Washington ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number CAS103756.), filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: #1 civil cover sheet)The new case number is 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-JMA. Judge Michael M. Anello and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler are assigned to the case. (Doe, Jane)(jrm) (jao). |
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 Southern 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.
