Betancourt v. Jen et al
Plaintiff: Rudolph Betancourt
Defendant: Federico Jen, Rosita Jen and Mi Toro Taco LLC
Case Number: 1:2024cv21588
Filed: April 25, 2024
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Becerra
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 25, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 4 PAPERLESS ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES ON SERVICE, DEFAULTS, CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES, JOINT SCHEDULING REPORTS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME. The Court enters the following Order to apprise the parties of its procedures on service, defaults, certificates of interested parties, joint scheduling reports and extensions of time. The parties shall comply with the following: 1. SERVICE: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint to be perfected upon Defendants within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the Court by filing the server's affidavit. If a Defendant waives service, notice of the same shall be filed immediately. Failure to file proof of service or show good cause within 90 days will result in a dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. 2. DEFAULTS: In the event a served Defendant does not appear in this action, the Plaintiffs shall file a motion for clerk's default within seven days of the deadline for the Defendant to answer. Extensions of time to answer a pleading must take the form of a motion to the Court. Motions for final default judgment, if applicable, shall be filed within seven days of the entry of default. 3. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES: Within fifteen days from the date the last Defendant enters an appearance in this action, the parties, including governmental parties, must file Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements that contain a complete list of persons, associated persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this case, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party. The parties must not include the undersigned or the assigned Magistrate Judge as interested parties unless they have an interest in the litigation. Throughout the pendency of the action, the parties are under a continuing obligation to amend, correct, and update the Certificates. 4. JOINT SCHEDULING REPORTS: Within twenty days from the date the last Defendant enters an appearance in this action, the parties are directed to prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Report as required by Local Rule 16.1. Disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l) must be made at or before the time the parties confer to develop their case management and discovery plan. The parties must certify in the Joint Scheduling Report that such disclosures have been made unless a party files an objection to a required disclosure. Such filed objection must include a full explanation of the basis for the objection. The scheduling conference may be held via video conference or in person. It may not be held by telephone. In proposing deadlines and trial dates in their Joint Scheduling Report, the parties are advised that the Court prefers for all discovery to be closed approximately 60 days prior to the deadline for filing dispositive motions, which should be due approximately 120 days prior to the first day of the trial period. Mediation may be completed after the close of discovery. Any deviation of more than thirty days from these guidelines or those proposed by the Local Rules should be noted in the Joint Scheduling Report along with an explanation for why more or less time is necessary. The Court provides these guidelines to assist the parties in proposing deadlines that are meaningful and realistic for the parties, counsel and the Court. Any enlargement of time that moves the dispositive motion deadline will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.5. EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Compliance with all deadlines--whether set by Court order or under the Federal and Local Rules--is mandatory. Requests for extensions of time will only be granted by the Court upon an appropriate motion showing good cause why the deadline cannot be met. Absent an emergency, motions for extensions of time must be filed no later than three business days prior to the deadline from which relief is being sought. All requests for extensions of time must include, in addition to the required conferral statement required under Local Rule 7.1, the following: (1) a list of any prior motions for extension of time, the basis for those requests, and whether they were granted; (2) a specific statement regarding the circumstances necessitating the requested relief; and (3) a specific period for the relief requested. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Becerra on 4/25/2024. (ad02)
April 25, 2024 Filing 3 Clerk's Notice to Filer re: Summons(es) will not be issued. The party(ies) on the summons(es) does not match the initiating documents. Filer may file a Notice of Filing Proposed Summons(es) with the corrected summons attached. Please provide One Summons Per Defendant. (cds)
April 25, 2024 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Jacqueline Becerra. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres 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. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (cds)
April 25, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Mi Toro Taco LLC, The Jen Family Revocable Trust. Filing fees $ 405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-17478287, filed by Rudolph Betancourt. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s), #3 Summon(s))(Wassenberg, Lauren)

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 this case: Betancourt v. Jen et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rudolph Betancourt
Represented By: Glenn R Goldstein
Represented By: Lauren Nicole Wassenberg
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: Federico Jen
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: Rosita Jen
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: Mi Toro Taco LLC
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.


Why Is My Information Online?