Wu v. Google, Inc.

Plaintiff: Pian Wu
Defendant: Google, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2013cv01871
Filed: April 24, 2013
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Santa Clara
Presiding Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
June 17, 2013 17 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING 16 STIPULATION continuing CMC and associated deadlines. Case Management Statement due by 8/16/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/23/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/17/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2013)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Wu v. Google, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pian Wu
Represented By: Alan Adelman
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Google, Inc.
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.