|
[+]
1
|
2025-04-01 |
COMPLAINT filed by Julie Stiebritz ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23284764. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
(Exhibit 4) |
|
2
|
2025-04-01 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz Schedule A to Complaint 1 |
|
3
|
2025-04-01 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
4
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Keith A. Vogt |
|
5
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Yanling Jiang |
|
6
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Yi Bu |
|
7
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Adam Grodman |
|
8
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
|
9
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Monica Rita Martin |
|
[+]
10
|
2025-04-01 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz by Christopher Romero |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
|
|
CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. |
|
13
|
2025-04-08 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz for leave to file under seal |
|
14
|
2025-04-08 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz for leave to file excess pages |
|
[+]
16
|
2025-04-08 |
MEMORANDUM in support of 15 Exparte motion |
|
|
Declaration of Keith A. Vogt |
|
|
Exhibit 1-4, of Keith A. Vogt's declaration |
|
|
Declaration of Julie Stiebritz |
|
|
(Exhibit 1, of of Julie Stiebritz's declaration) |
|
[+]
17
|
2025-04-08 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Julie Stiebritz Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Julie Stiebritz regarding memorandum in support of motion, 16 |
|
|
Exhibit 2-1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2-2 |
|
|
Exhibit 2-3 |
|
|
(Exhibit 2-4) |
|
18
|
2025-04-08 |
SUPPLEMENT to Supplemental Information in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 15 for Temporary Restraining Order |
|
19
|
2025-04-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Upon review of the plaintiff's supplement 18 in response to the Court's 4/2/25 order 12, this case is dismissed. The plaintiff acknowledges that all defendants included in the Schedule A in this case were originally named as defendants in case no. 1:25-cv-02742, and she further acknowledges that she dismissed the defendants from that suit in order to avoid an unfavorable joinder ruling from Judge Chang. That is a form of forum shopping: filing a claim, dismissing that claim in anticipation of an adverse ruling, and then filing a new suit that presents the same claim before a different judge. While the plaintiff characterizes her actions as merely "attempt[ing] to comply with the different procedural requirements and standards applied by different judges within this District regarding Schedule A cases," the Court disagrees with that characterization. True compliance with Judge Chang's procedures would have involved accepting an unfavorable joinder ruling and following a remedial order (whether that order directed severance or some other remedy). If the plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims against the defendants included in the Schedule A in this case, she must assert those claims in the case in which they were originally presented. The Court understands that the plaintiff may "face[] significant practical and financial challenges in pursuing separate actions against each defendant" after an unfavorable joinder ruling. But repeatedly naming 127 defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the plaintiff believes to be hospitable to joinder is not a solution to that problem. It is simply an abuse of process. All future dates and deadlines are stricken; all pending motions are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice |
|
20
|
2025-04-09 |
MAILED Copyright report with certified copy of minute order dated 4/9/2025 to Registrar, Washington DC |
|
21
|
2025-04-09 |
JUDGMENT Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 4/9/2025. Mailed notice |
