Snodgrass v. Sharp Healthcare et al
| Amber Snodgrass |
| Sharp Healthcare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital |
| 3:2019cv00702 |
| April 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Linda Lopez |
| M James Lorenz |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1715 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 20, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Amber Snodgrass (Green, Kevin) (sjt). |
Filing 22
ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Extend Time to Respond [ECF No. #21 ]. Plaintiff's Response to Sharp's Motion to Dismiss is due on 7/1/2019; Sharp's Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due on 7/8/2019; and Pursuant to the Court's 6/4/2019 Order, this matter shall be taken under submission without oral argument upon the filing of Defendants' reply. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/20/2019. (lrf)
|
| Filing 21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Amber Snodgrass. (Green, Kevin) (sjt). |
|
Filing 20
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge M. James Lorenz Rejecting re #19 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, from Plaintiff Amber Snodgrass. Non-compliance with local rule(s), ECF 2(h): Includes a proposed order or requires judges signature. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is rejected. It is ordered that the Clerk STRIKE the document from the record, and serve a copy of this order on all parties. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/18/2019.(lrf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/19/2019: #1 Rejected Document 19) (lrf).
|
| Filing 19 ***DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #20 *** Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Amber Snodgrass. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(Green, Kevin) (sjt). (Main Document 19 replaced on 6/19/2019) (lrf). Modified to strike on 6/19/2019 (lrf). |
|
Filing 18
ORDER granting #17 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss is due on June 17, 2019. Defendants Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due on June 24, 2019. The matter shall be taken under submission without oral argument upon filing of Defendants reply. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/4/2019. (sjt)
|
| Filing 17 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Amber Snodgrass. (Green, Kevin) (sjt). |
|
Filing 16
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw [Doc. #15 ] Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth A Fegan terminated. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/3/2019. (lrf)
|
| Filing 15 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Elizabeth A. Fegan by Amber Snodgrass. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Fegan, Elizabeth) (sjt). |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Party With Financial Interest by Sharp Grossmont Hospital, Sharp Healthcare . Identifying Other Affiliate Sharp Healthcare for Sharp Grossmont Hospital and Grossmont Hospital Corporation for Sharp Healthcare. (Chow, Teresa) Modified text on 5/15/2019 (tcf). |
| Filing 13 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, Stay The Action by Sharp Grossmont Hospital, Sharp Healthcare. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration of Teresa C. Chow, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Proposed Order)(Chow, Teresa)Attorney Teresa Carey Chow added to party Sharp Grossmont Hospital(pty:dft), Attorney Teresa Carey Chow added to party Sharp Healthcare(pty:dft) QC mailer sent re: proposed order attached (tcf). |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Amber Snodgrass. Sharp Grossmont Hospital served. (Fegan, Elizabeth) (tcf). |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Amber Snodgrass. Sharp Healthcare served. (Fegan, Elizabeth) (tcf). |
| Filing 10 PRO HAC APPROVED: Elizabeth A Fegan appearing for Plaintiff Amber Snodgrass (no document attached) (dsn) |
| Filing 9 PRO HAC APPROVED: Whitney K. Siehl appearing for Plaintiff Amber Snodgrass (no document attached) (dsn) |
| Filing 8 PRO HAC APPROVED: Shelby R. Smith appearing for Plaintiff Amber Snodgrass (no document attached) (dsn) |
| Filing 7 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-12418325.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Smith, Shelby) (dsn) |
| Filing 6 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-12418266.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Siehl, Whitney) (dsn) |
| Filing 5 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-12418242.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Fegan, Elizabeth) (dsn) |
| Filing 4 PRO HAC APPROVED: Steve W. Berman appearing for Plaintiff Amber Snodgrass (no document attached) (dsn) |
| Filing 3 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-12418049.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Berman, Steve) (dsn) |
| 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. (mme) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Sharp Grossmont Hospital, Sharp Healthcare ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-12417558.), filed by Amber Snodgrass.The new case number is 3:19-cv-702-L-LL. Judge M. James Lorenz and Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez are assigned to the case. (Green, Kevin)(mme) (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.
