Asencio v. City of San Diego et al
| Eleonor Asencio |
| State of California, San Ysidro California Border Patrol, Does 1 through 100, County of San Diego and General Services Administration |
| 3:2024cv02074 |
| November 5, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| David D Leshner |
| Thomas J Whelan |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 pi Removal- Personal Injury |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of San Diego Without Prejudice [Doc. #8 ] and Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss As Moot [Doc. #5 ]. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 12/10/2024. (mjw)
|
|
Filing 8
Joint MOTION to Dismiss Party City of San Diego by Eleonor Asencio. (Ghermezian, Raymond) ***QC Mailer sent re: proposed order attached***(exs).
|
|
Filing 7
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Thomas J. Whelan Rejecting re #6 MOTION to Dismiss Party . Non-compliance with local rule(s), The document has multiple problems. It violates Civil Local Rule 7.2.b. which requires any stipulation for which court approval is sought to be filed as a joint motion. It also violates Rule 7.2.c. which requires the proposed order to be filed as a document separate from the joint motion. In addition to the local rule violations, the documents pagination is out of order and the signature page for the judge (which should not be part of the joint motion) appears to have been taken from an unrelated document.. 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 Thomas J. Whelan on 12/5/2024. (Attachments: #1 Rejected Document)(exs)
|
|
Filing 6
***DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ECF NO. #7 ***Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of San Diego without Prejudice and Tolling Agreement (Attachments: #1 Notice Notice of Dismissal)(Ghermezian, Raymond) ***QC Mailer sent re: proposed order attached*** (exs). (Main Document 6 replaced on 12/5/2024) (exs). Modified to strike on 12/5/2024 (exs).
|
|
Filing 5
Defendant City of San Diego's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint(Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration, #3 Notice Notice of Lodgment, #4 Exhibit A, #5 Exhibit B, #6 Exhibit C, #7 Exhibit D, #8 Exhibit E, #9 Exhibit F)(Ikeri, Daniel) (exs).
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER Granting #2 Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Complaint Responses due by 1/7/2025. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 11/7/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(exs)
|
|
Filing 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by General Services Administration, San Ysidro California Border Patrol re #2 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint (Dimbleby, Erin) (exs).
|
|
Filing 2
Joint MOTION to Extend Time for Filing Response to Complaint (Dimbleby, Erin) (exs).
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 405, Fee Waived), filed by State of California, City of San Diego, General Services Administration, San Ysidro California Border Patrol, County of San Diego. (Attachments: #1 Info Sheet Civil Case Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Certificate of Service)The new case number is 3:24-cv-2074-W-DDL. Judge Thomas J. Whelan and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner are assigned to the case.(axc1) (jms).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
