Capp v. Nordstrom, Inc.
| Robert Capp |
| Nordstrom, Inc. |
| 2:2013cv00660 |
| April 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Placer |
| Allison Claire |
| Morrison C. England |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
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
50
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/02/15 ORDERING that, in accordance with the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, this action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
32
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/26/14. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
30
SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/28/14: Discovery due by 10/1/2014. The last day to hear summary judgment motions as to individual claims shall be 12/4/14. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 6 Motion to Dismiss signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/21/13: Plaintiff's Complaint is DEEMED AMENDED to omit his request for injunctive relief and prior demand for a jury trial. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/13/13. Defendant is ORDERED to appear before U.S. Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., in Courtroom 7, 14th floor, in the United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacr amento, California, on Thursday, 7/11/13, at 2:00 p.m., and that Defendant SHOW CAUSE WHY ITS MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED as not properly before the Court. Alternatively, in the interest of just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues in this case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, Defendant may provide a supplemental brief, to be filed and served not less than twenty-eight (28) days before the above hearing date, addressing the following issue: whether Plaintiff states a claim un der Californias Song Beverly Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08. Plaintiff may file and serve an opposition brief not less than fourteen (14) days before the above hearing date. Defendant may file and serve a reply not less than seven (7) days before the above hearing date. Argument may be heard on this issue, and the issues raised in Defendant's motion to dismiss, on Thursday, 7/11/13, at 2:00 p.m. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
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 Eastern 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: Capp v. Nordstrom, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robert Capp | |
| Represented By: | James M. Lindsay |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Nordstrom, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Brian Richard Blackman |
| Represented By: | Dana James Dunwoody |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
