Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Isaac Rodriguez
Defendant: Nike Retail Services, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2014cv01508
Filed: April 1, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Howard R. Lloyd
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 166 ORDER GRANTING 159 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL; APPROVING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR COSTS; APPROVING IN PART ENHANCEMENT AWARD. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/27/2022. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2022)
January 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 110 ORDER OVERRULING 107 RODRIGUEZ'S OBJECTION TO 106 NIKE'S APPLICATION TO THE CLERK TO TAX COSTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/16/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2018)
September 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 100 ORDER GRANTING 84 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/12/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2017)
August 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Beth L. Freeman denying 44 ; granting 51 . (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2016)
June 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 65 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 64 Case Management Conference - Further, Case Management Statement due by 9/22/2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/29/2016 11:00 AM. Tentative Jury Trial set for 7/30/2018 09:00 AM before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 06/30/2016. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)
June 12, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 43 Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying 40 Motion for Relief from Judge Lloyd's Non-Dispositive Order. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015)
April 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 39 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 38 Case Management Conference - Initial, Class Certification Motion due by 12/18/2015. Opposition to Class Certification Motion due by 2/12/2016. Reply to Opposition due by 3/11/2016. Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2016 09:00 AM before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 04/30/2015. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2015)
April 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 29 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2015)
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: Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Isaac Rodriguez
Represented By: Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang
Represented By: Dennis Sangwon Hyun
Represented By: Larry W Lee
Represented By: William Lucas Marder
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: Nike Retail Services, Inc.
Represented By: Maya Harel
Represented By: Casey Jean Teele McCoy
Represented By: Jonathan Douglas Meer
Represented By: Sheryl Lyn Skibbe
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.


Why Is My Information Online?