Monica Bruce et al v. Teleflora LLC
| Monica Bruce and Donna Stubbs |
| Teleflora LLC |
| 2:2013cv03279 |
| May 8, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Carla Woehrle |
| Otis D. Wright |
| Other Statutory Actions |
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
113
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE CLERKS TAXATION OFCOSTS 108 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 93 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice with No Conditions Attached. Plaintiffs Motion for Voluntary dismissal is GRANTED,But Plaintiffs Motion to impose no condition on that dismissal is DENIED. Teleflora, as the prevailing party, is entitled to recover its costs.Plaintiffs shall have until June 30, 2014 to accept or refuse the conditional dismissal. (lc) .Modified on 6/16/2014 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 43 AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS 68 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) .Modified on 12/18/2013. (lc).
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:the Court DENIES Plaintiffs application to file under seal.Plaintiffs application to file Exhibits 3 23 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may reapply to file these exhibits under seal. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Application to file Exhibit 2, Exhibit 24, and the Declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen under seal with prejudice. The Court DENIES Pl aintiffs Application to file its Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification under seal without prejudice. Plaintiffs may reapply to file their unredacted memorandum under seal, but Plaintiffs must also file a redacted version of the memorandum for public viewing. The redacted version of the memorandum should be edited to omit only the material that the parties believe in light of this order are truly confidential. (lc) Modified on 10/4/2013. (lc). Modified on 10/4/2013 (lc).
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER that Telefloras Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED 25 and Plaintiffs CLRA and UCL claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Telefloras Motionto Strike is DENIED 25 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 9/19/2013 (lc).
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Under footnote one of Defendant Teleflora, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, Teleflora states that the parties have stipulated to dismiss Counts 3 and 5 as to Plaintiff Stubbs a nd Count 4 as to Plaintiff Bruce. (Mot. 5, n.1.) Teleflora notes that "[a]s a result, Teleflora's present motion to dismiss is solely directed towards plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims." (Id.) It is unclear whether the stipulati on to dismiss acts to dismiss the Counts in their entirety. That is, does Stubbs still assert Count 4 and Bruce Counts 3 and 5? Therefore, the parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE to clarify this issue. The parties must file either a joint stipulation dismissing Counts 3 through 5 in their entirety, or otherwise file a joint report stating their precise positions. This stipulation or report must be filed by September 12, 2013. No hearing will be held on this matter. (jre)
|
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
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.
