Caviglia et al v. Rowe International Corporation, et al
| Rick Caviglia, Clayton Chrisman, Ricci Romagnesi and Tom Pigoski |
| Rowe International Corporation and AMI Entertainment, Inc. |
| 3:2014cv04834 |
| October 30, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Alameda |
| Joseph C. Spero |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
84
ORDER GRANTING 83 Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 5/4/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 46 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 55 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2016)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING re 24 Letter filed by AMI Entertainment Network, LLC, Rowe International Corporation for James Turken to appear by phone on 1/30/15 at 2:00 PM. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/30/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER GRANTING re 11 Stipulation filed by AMI Entertainment, Inc., Rowe International Corporation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint by 30 Days. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/2/14. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)
|
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 Northern 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.
