Joseph v. Clayton
| Alonzo Joseph |
| Dr. David Clayton |
| 3:2019cv02139 |
| November 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Gonzalo P Curiel |
| Ruth Bermudez Montenegro |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 RESPONSE in Opposition re #4 MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Alonzo Joseph. (jms) |
Filing 5
ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule re #4 MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof : Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendant's motion, or a notice of non- opposition, and must serve it upon Defendant's counsel of record no later than Friday, January 3, 2020. If Plaintiff files an opposition, Defendant may file a reply to that opposition, and must serve it upon Plaintiff no later than Friday, January 17, 2020. The Court has set Defendants motion for hearing on calendar for Friday, February 7, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/5/19.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by David Clayton. (Vanden Heuvel, Tim)Attorney Tim Jude Vanden Heuvel added to party David Clayton(pty:dft) (jms). |
| Filing 3 OBJECTION to the Removal of a State Suit to Federal Courts by Alonzo Joseph. Nunc pro tunc 11/20/19 (dlg) |
|
Filing 2
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel Accepting Document: Objection to the Removal of a State Suit to Federal Courts, from Plaintiff Alonzo Joseph. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 7.1: Lacking memorandum of points and authorities in support as a separate document, OTHER: Civ.L. Rule 5.2 - Missing Proof of Service. Nunc Pro Tunc 11/20/19. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/22/19.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL From Superior Court of the State of California, case number 37-2019-00027988-CU-PO-CTL., filed by David Clayton.(Filing fee $400 - receipt number: 0974-13137577) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C)The new case number is 3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel and Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro are assigned to the case.(jms)(jrd) |
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
| Search for this case: Joseph v. Clayton | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Alonzo Joseph | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Dr. David Clayton | |
| Represented By: | Richard F. Wolfe |
| Represented By: | Tim Jude Vanden Heuvel |
| 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.
