Dan Villasenor v. Sears Roebuck & Co et al
| 2:2009cv09147 |
| December 14, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Gutierrez |
| Mumm |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
142
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 80 Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees: Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for attorneys fees is DENIED. (see document for further details). (bm)
|
|
Filing
78
JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, 1) in favor of Defendant Sears Roebuck & Co: (a) as to Plaintiffs first, second, and third claims for relief in their entirety; (b) as to Plaintiffs fourth and fifth claims in their entirety; 2) In favor of Defe ndant A&E Factory Services LLC, as to all claims. The Court further orders that in respect to the judgment entered above, that Plaintiff Dan Villasenor take nothing and that the parties bear their own attorneys fees and costs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mg)
|
|
Filing
77
MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendants motion for summaryjudgment 28 in its entirety IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir)
|
|
Filing
27
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 26 Ex Parte Application Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Reopen Discovery: Plaintiff argues that ex parte relief is warranted because he served a demand for production of docu ments on Defendants on July 29, 2010, but agreed to extend the time by which Defendants were to respond pending the entry of a protective order. See Ex Parte Application 2. Because the protective order was not submitted until October 8, 2010, and was not entered by the Court until October 29, Plaintiff insists that he is unable to conduct the discovery necessary to proceed with settlement or trial. Id. While that may be true, there is no excuse for the delay in discovery that created the "n eed" to file this ex parte application. The parties offered a discovery cut-off date in their Joint Report and this Court set a date very close to what the parties suggested. They knew in May of 2010 that a protective order would be necessary in this case, yet waited to file it with the Court until October 8, less than one month from the looming discovery cut-off date. It is not the role of a district court to regularly check in on the parties to ensure that they are doing what they are su pposed to be doing. There is no good cause for the delay in filing the protective order and there is no good cause that would justify granting this extraordinary ex parte relief. Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
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 California Central 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
| Search for this case: Dan Villasenor v. Sears Roebuck & Co et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
