Metin Demir vs. Magnolia Public Schools Gulen Schools

•

1 like•1,065 views

The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order to plaintiff Metin Demir to show cause why his action against Magnolia Education and Research Foundation should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order noted that absent good cause, an action shall be dismissed if the summons and complaint have not been served within 90 days after filing. Plaintiff was advised that a responsive pleading by the defendant or proof of proper service on the defendant by July 21, 2017 would be considered a satisfactory response to avoid dismissal.

Education

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 8:16-cv-02268-JLS-JCG Date June 29, 2017
Title METIN DEMIR V. MAGNOLIA EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Present: The
Honorable
JOSEPHINE L. STATON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero Not Present
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL
Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in writing no later than July 21, 2017, why this
action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court notes in this regard, that
absent a showing of good cause, an action shall be dismissed if the summons and complaint have
not been served within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). An action
may be dismissed prior to such time if plaintiff has not diligently prosecuted the action. No oral
argument will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will
stand submitted upon the filing of an appropriate response.
Plaintiff is advised that the Court will consider either the filing of a responsive pleading
by defendant(s) to the complaint, or a proof of service (indicating proper service in full
compliance with the federal rules) as to the defendant(s), on or before the date upon which the
response is due, as a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause.
:
Initials of Preparer tg
CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1
Metin Demir v. Magnolia Public Schools Doc. 11
Dockets.Justia.com

This document is a court case regarding a petition for adoption. It summarizes that Australian citizens Slobodan and Dianne Bobanovic filed to adopt Adam Christopher Sales in Manila. The Ministry of Social Services did not complete the required case study. The court still granted the adoption in January 1985. Later, the Ministry refused to issue a travel clearance for Adam to travel to Australia with his adoptive parents. This led the adoptive parents to file a petition for mandamus to compel the Ministry to issue the clearance.

Fc2006removal sawbsp

Sharon Anderson

This document summarizes a memorandum of fact and law supporting the removal of a case from a Minnesota state court to federal court. The appellant claims they have been subject to long-term harassment and defamation by the city of St. Paul due to past political activities and litigation. The current case involves a threat by the city water board to disconnect water service, and the appellant argues the board has not provided adequate reasons and is denying them due process. The appellant requests the federal court issue an injunction barring further state court proceedings and police searches to prevent irreparable harm.

VSR, Retired,Carry

KEN CARLISLE

This document contains an affidavit from Kenneth J. Carlisle Jr. swearing that attached copies of several documents are true and unaltered copies of original documents in his possession. The documents include a Pennsylvania license to carry firearms, a training certificate from 2009, a certificate of retirement from the U.S. Army from 2004, and an AFGE union membership card valid through 2015. The affidavit is notarized and signed by Carlisle and the notary.

3rd extension (1)

Bryan Johnson

The parties request a one week extension of their meet and confer period and a seven day extension to submit a joint status report regarding settlement discussions in the Flores v. Holder case. They have been meeting frequently but require more time given the complexity of reconciling immigration laws, court orders, and the government's enforcement interests with the plaintiffs' objectives. The parties believe they are close to determining if a settlement can be reached and avoiding further litigation.

Exhibit 4 to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)

Rich Bergeron

The State of New Hampshire objects to Richard Bergeron's amended motion for sanctions on the grounds that the issue is moot. The State argues that Bergeron had previously filed a motion for sanctions in July 2020, which was denied in an order issued in October 2020. As the original motion was already decided, Bergeron's amended motion is untimely and should be dismissed. Alternatively, the State requests a 10 day extension to file a substantive response if the Court does not dismiss the motion as moot or untimely.

State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...

Rich Bergeron

USA v. Matt Beasley Extension

Hindenburg Research

The United States Attorney's Office and defense counsel for Matthew Wade Beasley filed a stipulation requesting the court to extend two deadlines: 1) conducting a preliminary hearing within 14 days of the defendant's initial appearance and 2) filing an indictment within 30 days of arrest. The parties are attempting to resolve the matter before indictment through a pre-indictment plea agreement and need more time. The defendant consents to waiving his rights under the speedy trial act and rule 5.1 and extending the deadlines to allow for potential resolution. The parties request scheduling the preliminary hearing 120 days from the date of the filing.

Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights

Rich Bergeron

I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.

This document is a reply by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on behalf of their client Strategic Storage Holdings LLC to the plaintiff's opposition to their demurrer. It argues that the opposition should be disregarded because it was not properly served within the required timeframe. It also argues that the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend because the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state valid claims and the opposition does not provide any valid legal arguments against the demurrer.

Defendant's Reply to State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Speedy Trial)

Rich Bergeron

Here I take the prosecutor from Grafton County to task for all her mistakes and lack of proper legal analysis. Judge O'Neill will still rule in her favor, no matter how lax in her duties she is. I do go overboard and keep insisting the state had no motion pending. There was actually a motion to amend before the court, so I screwed up myself there, but not nearly as badly as Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater did.

Order requiring filing fee

Cocoselul Inaripat

The document is a court order from a magistrate judge requiring the plaintiff in a civil case to pay the $350 filing fee within 14 days. It notes that the fee was initially waived when the plaintiff filed only a motion for return of property, but now that a complaint alleging various claims and seeking damages has been filed, the waiver is no longer appropriate. The plaintiff must either pay the fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days, or the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

Order requiring filing fee

Cocoselul Inaripat

The document is a court order from a United States District Court in Florida. It requires the plaintiff in a civil case, Traian Bujduveanu, to pay the $350 filing fee within 14 days, as the original waiver of the fee is no longer appropriate given that the plaintiff has expanded the scope of the case beyond an initial motion. If the plaintiff cannot afford the fee, they must file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days to seek relief from the fee, otherwise the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

Order requiring filing fee

Cocoselul Inaripat

The magistrate judge issued an order requiring the plaintiff to pay the $350 filing fee for civil cases within 14 days, as the case had expanded beyond the scope of the original motion for return of property. If the plaintiff could not afford the fee, they could file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 14 days. Failure to pay the fee or file the motion would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.

2008 Ricci V. De Stafano Sotomayor

maldef

A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the past 11 years, Sonia Sotomayor is now high on lists that lawyers and politicians have assembled of possible replacements for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court. She has a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, and many of her opinions have demonstrated a willingness to take the government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it.

Wal-mart confidential settlement

Workplace Investigations Group

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered that the case between Ibrahim Abdulahi and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. be dismissed without prejudice. The parties had reached a settlement in principle but the documentation was not yet complete. The case could be reopened within 60 days if the settlement was not finalized, otherwise it would be deemed dismissed with prejudice after 60 days.

{F7707 f89 9796-411a-a835-839eeaa56499}

jamesmaredmond

The court granted a motion for nonsuit and motion for judgment on the complaint in favor of defendant Amidi Partners. Amidi Partners also filed a motion to dismiss Steven Gaggero's answer to the cross complaint and motion to dismiss Marina Glencoe's complaint. The court ordered sanctions of $12,000 against Steven Gaggero for failing to appear at trial, to be paid by November 9th. The court also accepted a partial settlement between Amidi Partners and James Mesa and dismissed the amended cross complaint against James Mesa without prejudice.

UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE

VogelDenise

17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE This document has been prepared in support of DEPRIVATION OF JURY TRIAL(S) - i.e. as “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” – as set forth in the United States of America’s DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Furthermore, provides a copy of a Court Order FALSELY accusing Newsome of RACIAL and ANTI-SEMITIC SLURS for addressing for what are KNOWN to be Terrorist Acts, War Crimes, Apartheid Practices/Crimes Against Humanity, and other Criminal Acts launched against her by the United States of America’s NAZI’S and/or WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists! IMPORTANT TO NOTE: Are those WHO played ROLES in the FOUNDING of Israel as the Nazis and/or WHITE Jewish/Zionists/Supremacists Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-founder-of-state-of-israel The DENIAL of JURY TRIAL is also a defense that may be used in seeking INTERNATIONAL Judicial Review, INVESTIGATIONS and PROSECUTIONS, etc. – i.e. in taking matter(s) before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals!

062018 FAX -EMAIL Prosecutor Eric Hawkins... (Cary Johnson)

VogelDenise

17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE This document contains the FAX sent in regards to the Cary Cornelius Johnson matter. Mr. Johnson was KIDNAPPED and subjected to other CRIMES on or about 04/30/18. Many mentioned that under the United States’ DESPOTISM President Donald Trump, he would DIVIDE the Country. However, even better, a Legal and Lawful “NEW” Government (Utica International Embassy) will be addressing and bringing matters properly before INTERNATIONAL Tribunals and/or Nations to address such TERRORIST/RACIST attacks, etc. as that leveled against SOVEREIGN Citizens as Cary Cornelius Johnson WITHOUT just cause! NOTE: How QUICK the KKKlan’s Law Enforcement was to KIDNAP and commit other CRIMES against Cary Cornelius Johnson. NOW that he is ENTITLED to RESTITUTION, they will DRAG THEIR FEET! https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/061818-fax-to-mississippicommissiononjudicialperformancejudgemichaelprewittprosecutorerichawkins-cary-johnson With Warmest Regards, UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY c/o Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome Post Office Box 31265 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 (888) 700-5056 / (513) 680-2922 Website: https://uticainternationalembassy.website

Doc 37

Cocoselul Inaripat

This document is a response brief filed by defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda in opposition to plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu's fourth motion to appoint pro bono counsel. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion should be denied for the same reasons the court denied his previous three motions - that the case does not present exceptional circumstances and the plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to represent himself. The court had previously found the plaintiff could research and present legal arguments without counsel. The defendants contend the plaintiff's inability to find counsel speaks more to the merits of the case than any need for appointed counsel.

Doc 37

Cocoselul Inaripat

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...

Cocoselul Inaripat

This document is a brief filed by defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda in response to the plaintiff's fourth motion to appoint pro bono counsel. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion should be denied for the same reasons the court denied his previous motions - that the case does not present exceptional circumstances and the plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to represent himself. The court has previously found the plaintiff can conduct legal research and present arguments without counsel. The defendants request the court deny the plaintiff's fourth motion.

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...

Cocoselul Inaripat

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...

Cocoselul Inaripat

Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10

JRachelle

This document is the Executor's response in opposition to a motion to dismiss filed by Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown. The Executor argues that the motion to dismiss should be denied for three reasons: 1) Brown is raising the same arguments that the court already rejected in granting leave to amend the complaint, 2) the Executor has properly stated claims for both statutory and common law misappropriation of publicity rights, and 3) even if the motion to dismiss is granted, there are six other valid causes of action against Brown that would remain in the case.

Using the attached information, you will prepare a Case Brief on a.docx

daniahendric

Using the attached information, you will prepare a Case Brief on a recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding a criminal justice topic. You must include the following sections: caption, facts, procedural history, issue, rule of law, holding, and rationale. The Case Brief must be 1–2 pages. Save your work as a Microsoft Word document and submit it to Blackboard. Prior to submitting the assignment, review the Case Brief Grading Rubric to verify that all components of the assignment have been completed. (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SALINAS v . TEXAS CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS No. 12–246. Argued April 17, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013 Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warn- ings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection, the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the prosecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment. Held : The judgment is affirmed. 369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed. J USTICE A LITO , joined by T HE C HIEF J USTICE and J USTICE K ENNEDY , concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’s question. Pp. 3 − 12. (a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shield- ing information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it. Minnesota v. Murphy , 465 U. S. 420, 427. This Court has rec- ognized two exceptions to that requirement. First, a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own trial. Griffin v. California , 380 U. S. 609, 613–615. Petitioner’s silence falls outside this exception because he had no comparable un- qualified right not to speak during his police interview. Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. See, e.g. , Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 467 − 468, and n. 37. Petitioner cannot benefit from this principle 2 SALINAS v. TEX.

Collin County Commercial Record 2017

cutmytaxes

This document provides notices of constable sales of real property in Collin County, Texas to satisfy judgments. It includes 4 notices for different properties being sold by the constable to satisfy judgments in cases involving Wells Fargo Bank, Latisha Taylor, Unifund CCR Partners, and Frisco Independent School District. The notices provide details of the properties being sold, the parties involved in the judgments, and the amounts owed. The properties will be sold at public auction on April 4, 2017 at the Collin County Courthouse.

Employment lawupdate

Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC

Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final

THINK FORWARD

The learned judge erred in striking out the Attorney General's amended claim against Allen Chastanet and Kenneth Cazaubon based solely on the pleadings, without considering the further amended statement of claim that had been filed pursuant to leave granted. The further amended statement of claim asserted ownership of the funds by the Government of Saint Lucia, which raised a serious factual issue that could only be determined after a full trial. It was inappropriate for the judge to make determinations of mixed fact and law based solely on pleadings, before witness statements or evidence was presented at trial. The judge's decision to strike out the claim cannot stand given his failure to consider the operative further amended statement of claim.

Horizon Science Academy sues Ohio for loss of educational grants

Metin Demir vs. Magnolia Public Schools Gulen Schools

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Metin Demir vs. Magnolia Public Schools Gulen Schools

Similar to Metin Demir vs. Magnolia Public Schools Gulen Schools (20)

More from Gulen Cemaat

More from Gulen Cemaat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Metin Demir vs. Magnolia Public Schools Gulen Schools