Vinod Chhabra v. DeVry University, Inc., et al
| Vinod Chhabra |
| DeVry University, DeVry University, Inc., DeVry, Inc., Does, Brian Porter, Scott Sand and Kelli Spence |
| 2:2015cv03857 |
| May 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
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
53
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:On July 25, 2016, the Court DISMISSED the case with PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs failure to appear and prosecute the action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDICATED that judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants DeVry University, Inc. (also erroneously sued as DeVry University), DeVry, Inc. (nka DeVry Education Group, Inc.), Brian Porter, Scott Sand, and Kelli Spence. Defendants shall be awarded their costs of suit herein. (lc)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND 16 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 2/2/2016 (lc).
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FRAUDULENT JOINDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: It appears on the face of the Complaint that there is no diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, indicating why the individual California Defendants are not fraudulently joined. Plaintiff shall file his brief within fourteen days of the date of this Order. (lc)
|
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.
