Solis v. Target Corporation
| Javier Solis |
| Target Corporation |
| 2:2014cv00686 |
| March 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
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
103
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/07/2016 DENYING 101 Application for an order shortening time. (Butolph, J)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER denying 88 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/7/16. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/29/2016 ORDERING that Defendant Target Corporation's 88 Motion for Protective Order shall be heard on 10/7/2016, in Courtroom 27 at 10:00 a.m. The parties' joint statement regarding discovery dispute and supporting documents will be filed by 10/3/2016. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/07/16 ordering On May 5, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court shouldnot dismiss the Doe defendants. 77 Plaintiff has not responded to the courts order.The court construes plaintiffs lack of response as a concession, and therefore DISMISSES theunnamed defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
79
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/02/16 ORDERING to DISMISS the 7th claim for Violation of the Family Medical Leave Act [ 24 U.S.C. 2615(a)] with prejudice against Target for a waiver of fees and costs as to this claim only. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/5/2016 ORDERING 59 The court DENIES plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add new allegations and claims relating to age discrimination; the court GRANTS plaintiff 9;s motion for leave to amend the complaint to dismiss his claim for retaliation under the FMLA; Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint in accordance with this order within 14 days of the date this order is filed; Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED, within 14 days of the date this order if filed, to show cause why the court should not dismiss the "Doe" defendants. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/4/16 ORDERING that Defendant's 4/27/16 MOTION for a protective order (ECF No. 73 ) is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/25/16 ORDERING that Defendant's 4/19/16 70 Ex Parte Application is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/13/2016 ORDERING that plaintiff's 57 motion to withdraw deemed admissions is GRANTED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/29/16 ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the District Judge assigned to this action pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21); and All dates pending before the undersigned are vacated. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/7/16 ORDERING that this matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for all pretrial scheduling and proceedings. Any hearing dates currently set, and any initial scheduling orders is sued, by the undersigned are VACATED. Any pending requests shall be referred to the magistrate judge. All future documents filed in the above captioned case shall reference the following case number: 2:14-CV-0686 KJM AC (PS). The Clerk shall issue an Initial Scheduling Order for Magistrate Judge Claire. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/23/15 ORDERING that plaintiff is REFERRED to ADR & Pro Bono Program for possible pro bono representation; the stay will be lifted 10/29/15 whether or not the plaintiff has retained or been appointed counsel; a Status Conference is SET for 12/10/2015 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/14/15, ORDERING that within 14 days of entry of this order, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The dates set in the 8/7/2014 Scheduling Order are VACATED and this case is STAYED pending plaintiff's response to this order. Defendant's 6/29/2016 Ex Parte Application to Modify Scheduling Order 25 is DENIED as moot. (Kastilahn, A)
|
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: Solis v. Target Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Javier Solis | |
| Represented By: | Mark Stephen Adams |
| Represented By: | Robert Joshua Wasserman |
| 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: Target Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Laura J. Maechtlen |
| Represented By: | Anthony Joseph Musante |
| 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.
