Nasery v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al
| Malalai Nasery |
| CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Does 1 through 20, Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. and Pharm.D. Padmaja Gadde |
| 3:2018cv02190 |
| September 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Roger T Benitez |
| William V Gallo |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 mm |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER : (1) Granting Joint Motion to Remand, Doc #12 ; and (Denying as Moot Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, Doc. #6 . Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/8/2018. (Copy mailed to San Diego Superior Court) (anh) (sjt).
|
| Filing 12 Joint MOTION to Remand to State Court by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. (Warren, Marissa) (anh). |
|
Filing 11
ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. #3 ]. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/3/2018. (anh)
|
| Filing 10 Minute Order issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: Submitting #3 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6). Court to issue written Order. Motion Hearing date of 11/5/2018 10:30AM is hereby vacated. (no document attached) (gxr) |
| Filing 9 Second 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. (anh) |
| Filing 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Malalai Nasery re #6 MOTION to Remand , #5 Amended Complaint Declaration of Barry Pasternack in Support of Motion to Remand (Pasternack, Barry) (anh). |
| Filing 7 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. (anh) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Remand by Malalai Nasery. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Barry Pasternack in Support of Remand)(Pasternack, Barry) QC Email Sent re: Missing certificate of service(anh). |
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Does 1 through 20, Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., Padmaja Gadde, filed by Malalai Nasery.New Summons Requested. (Pasternack, Barry) (anh). |
| Filing 4 Proposed Order to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6) by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. (Warren, Marissa) QC Email Sent re: Proposed Order (modified to reflect proposed order/term motion event (anh). |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(B)(6) by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. (Warren, Marissa) (anh). |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Party With Financial Interest by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. Identifying Corporate Parent CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Corporate Parent CVS Health Corporation for Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. (mtr) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from Superior Court of California, San Diego County, case number 37-2018-00037654-CU-PN-CTL,, filed by Movant Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.. Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-11702306. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 State Court Complaint, #3 State Court Summons, #4 Declaration of Melanie Luker in Support of Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.'s Notice of Removal, #5 Declaration of Dennis K. Ames in Support of Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.'s Notice of Removal, #6 Exhibit A-D to the Declaration of Dennis K. Ames)The new case number is 3:18-cv-2190-BEN-WVG. Judge Roger T. Benitez and Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo are assigned to the case.(mtr) (sjt). |
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.
