United African-Asian Abilities Club et al v. Ulric 264, LP et al
| United African-Asian Abilities Club and James Lee |
| Ulric 264, LP and Does 1 through 10 |
| 3:2024cv00260 |
| February 9, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| David D Leshner |
| Thomas J Whelan |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 3601 Fair Housing Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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. (ggv) (anh). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Does 1 through 10, Ulric 264, LP ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ACASDC-18571911.), filed by United African-Asian Abilities Club, James Lee. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A to Civil Complaint, #3 Exhibit B to Civil Complaint, #4 Exhibit C to Civil Complaint)The new case number is 3:24-cv-260-W-DDL. Judge Thomas J. Whelan and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner are assigned to the case. (Wakefield, David)(ggv) (anh). (Main Document 1 replaced to correct case number on image on 2/12/2024) (anh). (Attachment 1 replaced to correct case number on image on 2/12/2024) (anh). Modified to correct case number on image on 2/12/2024 (anh). |
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.
