MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC et al v. Willis et al
| MIA AESTHETICS, CLINIC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and, MIA AESTHETICS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC and MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC |
| KANYE WILLIS, a Florida resident,, SCOTT MORADIAN, a Florida resident,, GIANNINA F. SOPO, a Florida resident,, MIAMI AESTHETIC CENTER LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and, CARMEN GALLARDO, a Florida resident, Carmen Gallardo, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, Scott Moradian, Giannina F. Sopo and Kanye Willis |
| 1:2022cv21900 |
| June 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Lauren Fleischer Louis |
| K Michael Moore |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 40 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT as to #39 Transmittal Letter Sent (pc) |
| Filing 39 Transmittal Letter Sent with Order to: 11th Judicial Circuit Court. State Court Case Number: 21-026854-CA-15 (Attachments: #1 Order) (ebz) |
Filing 38
Order Remanding Case to State Court Closing Case. Motions terminated: #32 Joint MOTION TO DISMISS #17 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Carmen Gallardo. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/5/2022. See attached document for full details. (fpi)
|
| Filing 37 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 35 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,,,, by MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Order Granting Plaintiffs' Verified Amended Motion for Temporary Injunction, #2 Exhibit Docket from the state court, #3 Exhibit Case Management Order, #4 Exhibit Motion for Contempt and notice of hearing)(Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 36 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 35 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,,,, by Carmen Gallardo. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1 - 2022 01 20 Defs MTD Complaint or for More Definite Statement -, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - 2022 03 03 (Willis MIA AESTH. CTR LLC) Defs MTD Complaint or MTN for More Def. Stmt-, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - 2022 03 22 (S. Moradian) Def Moradian Motion to Dismiss, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - 2022 05 19 (Willis - MAC) MTD SAC and Motion to Strike Portions of SAC.)(Lopez, Jared) |
|
Filing 35
PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. On August 23, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs leave to file their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") and accepting as timely the version filed at ECF Docket Number #17 . See #29 . The Court did not, however, rule on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand ( #20 ), and the Court now finds that motion and its subsequent briefings were written without knowledge as to whether the Court would permit filing of the TAC. See, e.g., #27 at 35 (requesting that the Court strike Plaintiffs' TAC and deny permission to amend). The Court is obligated to inquire into the question of its jurisdiction over cases brought before it. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) ("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level."); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). Here, given the Court's August 23 Order permitting Plaintiffs to file their TAC, see #29 , renewed briefing on the issue of whether this Court retains subject matter jurisdiction is called for. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs' filing of their TAC #17 , Plaintiffs' outstanding Motion to Remand #20 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Parties are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before Tuesday, October 4, 2022 as to why the Court should not dismiss this matter for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/26/2022. (fpi)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to #32 Joint MOTION TO DISMISS #17 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . Per DE 34 Order. Responses due by 10/7/2022 Replies due by 10/24/2022. (ebz) |
|
Filing 34
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Parties' Joint Motion for Extensions of Time to Oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and Reply. #33 . Therein, the Parties request additional time to file their briefings due to the occurrence of Jewish Holidays during the briefing period, as well as for the Parties to file joint briefings. See #33 at 2. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #33 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss #32 on or before October 7, 2022, and the Defense shall reply on or before October 24, 2022. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/24/2022. (fpi)
|
| Filing 33 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss The Third Amended Complaint and to Reply by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC. Responses due by 10/7/2022 (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss The Third Amended Complaint and to Reply)(Zarco, Roberto) |
| Filing 32 Joint MOTION TO DISMISS #17 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Carmen Gallardo. Responses due by 9/27/2022 (Lopez, Jared) |
|
Filing 31
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. #30 . Therein, Defendants request a seven (7) day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint #17 in order to harmonize their joint response to Plaintiffs' allegations. #30 at 2. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #30 is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' TAC on or before September 13, 2022. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/31/2022. (fpi)
|
| Filing 30 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #29 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Granting Plaintiffs' Request to File Third Amended Complaint by Carmen Gallardo. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Unopposed Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint)(Markoe, Zaharah) |
|
Filing 29
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' request to file the Third Amended Complaint #17 and denying as moot Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #13 . Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/23/2022. See attached document for full details. (tgr)
|
| Filing 28 Plaintiff's REPLY to #27 Response in Opposition to Motion, #20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC. (Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 27 RESPONSE in Opposition re #20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Carmen Gallardo, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, Scott Moradian, Giannina F. Sopo, Kanye Willis. Replies due by 8/18/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit First MTD, #2 Exhibit Second MTD, #3 Exhibit Third MTD, #4 Exhibit Fourth MTD)(Vargas-Mejia-Ricart, Maria) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings per DE 26 Order re #20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Responses due by 8/11/2022 (amb) |
|
Filing 26
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Joint Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand. #25 . Therein, Defendants request a seven (7) day extension of time, up to and including August 11, 2022, to file a joint response in opposition to Plaintiffs' #20 Motion for Remand. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. Id. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #25 is GRANTED. Defendants may file their joint response in opposition to Plaintiffs' #20 Motion for Remand on or before August 11, 2022. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/3/2022. (elm)
|
| Filing 25 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for remand re #20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Miami Aesthetic Center LLC. Responses due by 8/16/2022 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed order)(Vargas-Mejia-Ricart, Maria) |
| Filing 24 REPLY to #23 Reply to Response to Order to Show Cause, Motion for Leave to Amend by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC. (Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 23 REPLY to #19 Response to Order to Show Cause, by Carmen Gallardo, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, Scott Moradian, Kanye Willis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit First MTD, #2 Exhibit Second MTD, #3 Exhibit Third MTD, #4 Exhibit Fourth MTD)(Lopez, Jared) |
|
Filing 22
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Scheduling Report. #21 . Therein, Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline to file a joint scheduling report up to seven (7) days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' pending motion for remand. Id. at 1-2. Defendants do not oppose the instant Motion. Id. at 2. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Scheduling Report #21 is GRANTED. The Parties may file their joint scheduling report no later than seven (7) days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' #20 Motion for Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/25/2022. (elm)
|
| Filing 21 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to file joint scheduling report by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC. Responses due by 8/5/2022 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Scheduling Report)(Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 20 Plaintiff's MOTION to Remand to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Verified Amended Motion for Temporary Injunction, #2 Exhibit A copy of the docket from the state court, #3 Exhibit A copy of the Case Management Order, #4 Exhibit A copy of the Motion to Contempt and notice of hearing on same)(Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 19 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 18 Order to Show Cause,,,,,, by MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A copy of the detailed e-mail exchange, #2 Exhibit A copy of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint)(Patel, Himanshu) |
|
Filing 18
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. #17 . Prior to the removal of this action to this Court, the state court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and permitted Plaintiffs to file the operative Second Amended Complaint. See generally #1 . Now, after Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in this Court post-removal, #13 , Plaintiffs have filed their Third Amended Complaint, #17 . The Third Amended Complaint dismisses Plaintiffs' federal claims, which, according to Plaintiffs, divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction and forces remand of this action to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. #17 at 1 n.1. Plaintiffs did not seek permission from this Court to file the Third Amended Complaint in response to Defendant's Joint Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to show cause why the filing of their Third Amended Complaint without permission from this Court complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Response due July 22, 2022. Separately, the Court expresses skepticism that the Third Amended Complaint automatically divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 474 n.6 (2007); Parker v. Exterior Restorations, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d. ---, No. CV 21-0425-WS-B, 2022 WL 1239466, at *6 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 27, 2022). Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/15/2022. (elm)
|
| Filing 17 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Carmen Gallardo, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, Scott Moradian, Giannina F. Sopo, Kanye Willis, filed by MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A copy of the Trademark Registration, #2 Exhibit A copy of the Agreement, #3 Exhibit The Website Page, #4 Exhibit A composite image appearing on the Miami Aesthetic Center Instagram Profile, #5 Exhibit A highlighted Google search result for "Mia Aesthetics", #6 Exhibit A copy of two screenshots where Miami Aesthetic Center falsely represents that is "MIA Aesthetics")(Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Striking #14 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,, filed by MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC by MIA Aesthetics Clinic, LLC, MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC (Patel, Himanshu) |
| Filing 15 Clerk's Notice to Filer re #14 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,,. Login/Signature Block Violation; CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED - The name of attorney e-filing this document via their CM/ECF login does not match the name of attorney on the signature block of the document. The name used for login must match the typed name on signature block of the document. This filing is a violation of Section 3J(1) of CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rule 5.1(b). Filer must File a Notice of Striking, then refile document pursuant to CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rules. (ls) |
| Filing 14 "STRICKEN" Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Carmen Gallardo, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, Scott Moradian, Giannina Sopo, Kanye Willis, filed by MIA Aesthetics Holdings, LLC, MIA AESTHETICS, CLINIC, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A copy of the Trademark Registration, #2 Exhibit A copy of the Agreement, #3 Exhibit The Website Page, #4 Exhibit A composite image appearing on the Miami Aesthetic Center Instagram Profile, #5 Exhibit A highlighted Google search result for "Mia Aesthetics", #6 Exhibit A copy of two screenshots where Miami Aesthetic Center falsely represents that is "MIA Aesthetics")(Einhorn, Robert) Modified on 7/18/2022 (ls). (per DE #16 ) |
| Filing 13 Joint MOTION TO DISMISS #10 Notice (Other) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Carmen Gallardo. Responses due by 7/19/2022 (Lopez, Jared) |
|
Filing 12
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Kanye Willis, Scott Moradian, Miami Aesthetic Center LLC, and Carmen Gallardo's Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Operative Complaint. #11 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Joint Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Joint Motion #11 is GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2022. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/27/2022. (tgr)
|
| Filing 11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer by Carmen Gallardo. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A to Joint Unopposed MET)(Lopez, Jared) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Filing by Carmen Gallardo re 7 Order,,,, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit L) (Lopez, Jared) Modified Text on 6/23/2022 (ls). |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Paul Souferis on behalf of Carmen Gallardo (Souferis, Paul) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Zaharah R. Markoe on behalf of Carmen Gallardo (Markoe, Zaharah) |
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the filing of Defendant Carmen Gallardo's Notice of Removal. #1 . Defendant's Notice of Removal references an operative Second Amended Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, which Defendant claims is attached to the Notice of Removal as Exhibit L. See generally id. However, Exhibit L is the state court's "Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, or Alternatively, Motion for More Definite Statement." See (ECF No. 1-13). The Court is otherwise unable to locate the operative Second Amended Complaint within the portions of the state court record that Defendant filed with this Court upon removal. Accordingly, Defendant Carmen Gallardo is ORDERED to file a Notice with the operative Second Amended Complaint attached thereto. Defendant's Notice is due on or before June 27, 2022. If Defendant fails to file the Second Amended Complaint by the deadline set forth herein, the Court will remand this action for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/23/2022. (elm)
|
|
Filing 6
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREN F. LOUIS. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis's discovery procedures. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/23/2022. (elm)
|
|
Filing 5
PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of a Notice of Removal. Counsel for the removing party is hereby ORDERED to forward a copy of this Order to all other parties. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a Joint Scheduling Report. The report shall indicate the proposed month and year for the trial and the estimated number of days required for trial. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer, or may offer, if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (A) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (B) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address, and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibility of a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report may result in remand or dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The filing of a motion to dismiss, or other motion, does not toll the time for filing a joint scheduling report. Counsel for the non-removing party must file a motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Notice of Removal. The parties are hereby on notice that this Court requires all filings to be formatted in 12 point Times New Roman font and double spaced, including any footnotes, with one inch margins on all sides. Failure to follow these formatting guidelines may result in the filing being stricken, any opposing filing being granted by default, and the imposition of other sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. The parties shall seek extensions of time in a timely fashion. "A motion for extension of time is not self-executing.... Yet, by filing these motions on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this." Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three (3) days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court. Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/23/2022. (elm)
|
| Filing 4 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. Incorrect case opening information. The Filer selected the incorrect Cause of Action when filing. The correction was made. It is not necessary to re-file this document. (pc) |
| Filing 3 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. Party(ies) Improperly Formatted. The Filer failed to enter the party name(s) in accordance with the CM/ECF Format for Adding Parties see Attorneys Guide. The correction was made. It is not necessary to re-file the document. (pc) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (pc) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - COMPLAINT) Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15731234, filed by CARMEN GALLARDO, a Florida resident. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit Exhibit M, #15 Exhibit Exhibit N, #16 Exhibit Exhibit O, #17 Exhibit Exhibit P, #18 Exhibit Exhibit Q, #19 Exhibit Exhibit R, #20 Exhibit Exhibit S)(Lopez, Jared) See Exh. Q for Motion to Dismiss (State Court records) Modified text on 6/22/2022 (pc). |
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 Florida 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.
