2:26-cv-02943 Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles et al
Case Summary
Bernadette Suarez brought a civil action against the County of Los Angeles and other defendants. The court granted an extension of time to file a document, indicating a procedural accommodation to allow additional time for filing required paperwork. This extension may affect case deadlines and scheduling but does not provide insight into the substantive claims or defenses. The case remains active with ongoing procedural developments.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
14 events
Coverage
14 articles
Sources
1
Key Issues
- • Extension of filing deadline
- • Civil procedure
- • Case scheduling
update What Changed This Week
Case Timeline
14 events2:24-cv-01710 Xochilt Rosas et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Bernadette Suarez versus the County of Los Angeles, an event related to another case, Xochilt Rosas et al. versus the County of Los Angeles, took place. This indicates a connection or reference between the two cases, which may influence proceedings or decisions in one or both cases.
2:25-cv-03343 Robert Williams v. County of Los Angeles
In the case of Robert Williams v. County of Los Angeles, a substitute attorney has been appointed to represent one of the parties. This change in legal representation could impact the progress and strategy of the case. It matters because new counsel may bring different approaches or expertise that influence the outcome.
2:25-cv-05514 James Michael Fayed v. County of Los Angeles, et al
In the case Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles and others, a notice related to a different case, James Michael Fayed v. County of Los Angeles and others, was filed. This suggests that the court is addressing procedural or administrative matters that may connect or impact both cases. Such notices help keep all parties informed about developments that could influence the litigation process.
2:25-cv-06458 Darron Larry Alexander v. City of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Bernadette Suarez versus the County of Los Angeles, a summons request was filed related to another case involving Darron Larry Alexander against the City of Los Angeles. This procedural step means the court is formally notifying the defendants about the lawsuit, which is necessary to move the case forward. It matters because without a summons, the defendants may not be legally required to respond, potentially delaying the legal process.
2:25-cv-04765 Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
A hearing took place regarding a motion in the case Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al v. City of Los Angeles et al. This hearing is part of the legal process where the judge considers arguments related to a specific request made by one of the parties. The outcome could influence how the case proceeds or is resolved.
2:24-cv-04032 Wilmer Alexander Guevara et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles, an attorney has officially withdrawn from representing a party. This change in legal representation could affect the progress and strategy of the case. It is important for the court and involved parties to be aware of who is representing each side.
2:25-cv-08213 Penelope Hanson et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
A telephone conference was held in the case of Penelope Hanson and others versus the County of Los Angeles, which is related to the case involving Bernadette Suarez and the County of Los Angeles. This conference likely involved discussions on case management or procedural matters. Such conferences help streamline the legal process and ensure both parties are aligned on next steps.
2:20-cv-07439 Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles, a declaration was filed as part of a motion. This means a party submitted a formal statement to support their request to the court. Such declarations provide evidence or explanations that can influence the judge's decision on the motion.
2:25-cv-12030 George Martinez v. City of Los Angeles et al
In the case Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles, an event related to a different case, George Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, was noted. This cross-reference may indicate a connection or similarity between the two cases, which could impact how the Suarez case is handled.
2:25-cv-12391 Ronald Gainer et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
A hearing took place in the case involving Ronald Gainer and others against the City of Los Angeles, focusing on utility termination issues. This hearing is part of ongoing legal proceedings addressing disputes related to utility services. It matters because the outcome could affect how utility terminations are handled by the city.
2:24-cv-10252 Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles, a Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel was filed related to the case Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles. This means that a lawyer either officially joined or left the legal team representing one of the parties. Such changes can affect the strategy and progress of the case.
2:25-cv-07291 ESTATE OF ALFREDO M. FLORES et al v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al
In the case involving Bernadette Suarez against the County of Los Angeles, an amended complaint was filed related to the Estate of Alfredo M. Flores case. This means the plaintiffs have updated their legal claims or added new information to their lawsuit. Amending the complaint can clarify issues or strengthen the case before it proceeds further.
2:23-cv-01575 Jing Xu v. City of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Jing Xu v. City of Los Angeles, the court granted an extension of time to file a document. This means one party was given extra time to submit required paperwork, which helps ensure all necessary information is properly reviewed. Extensions like this can affect the timeline of the case but allow for thorough preparation.
2:26-cv-02943 Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles et al
In the case of Bernadette Suarez versus the County of Los Angeles and others, the court identified a problem with the summons issued in the case, indicating it was deficient. This means the summons did not meet certain legal requirements, which could delay the proceedings until the issue is corrected.
Coverage Timeline
Press Coverage
2:24-cv-01710 Xochilt Rosas et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
2:25-cv-03343 Robert Williams v. County of Los Angeles
Substitute Attorney ( 41
2:25-cv-05514 James Michael Fayed v. County of Los Angeles, et al
Notice (Other) ( 29
2:25-cv-06458 Darron Larry Alexander v. City of Los Angeles et al
Summons Request ( 8
2:25-cv-04765 Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
Motion Hearing ( 52
2:24-cv-04032 Wilmer Alexander Guevara et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
Withdraw as Attorney ( 67
2:25-cv-08213 Penelope Hanson et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
Telephone Conference ( 37
2:20-cv-07439 Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles et al
Declaration (Motion related) ( 467
2:25-cv-12030 George Martinez v. City of Los Angeles et al
2:25-cv-12391 Ronald Gainer et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
~Util - Terminate Hearings ( 23
2:24-cv-10252 Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles et al
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123) ( 59
2:25-cv-07291 ESTATE OF ALFREDO M. FLORES et al v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al
Amended Complaint/Petition ( 52
2:23-cv-01575 Jing Xu v. City of Los Angeles et al
Extension of Time to File Document ( 156
2:26-cv-02943 Bernandette Suarez v. County of Los Angeles et al
Deficiency in Summons ( 12