Vaughn-Love v. Teg Staffing, Inc. et al
Kimberly Vaughn-Love |
Eastridge Workforce Technology, Inc. and Teg Staffing, Inc. |
3:2019cv00519 |
March 19, 2019 |
US District Court for the Southern District of California |
Barbara Lynn Major |
Dana M Sabraw |
Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 DOCUMENT DOCKETED IN ERROR. (aef). |
Filing 4 ORDER Granting #3 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her claims without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/24/2019. (aef) |
Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) by Kimberly Vaughn-Love. (Ozzello, Mark) Modified on 4/23/2019 QC mailer sent re missing hearing date and time; memorandum of points and authorities (aef). |
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. (als) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Eastridge Workforce Technology, Inc., Teg Staffing, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-12316825.), filed by Kimberly Vaughn-Love. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:19-cv-00519-DMS-BLM. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case. (Ozzello, Mark)(als)(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.