Central Coast Pipe Lining Inc v. Pipe Shield USA Inc et al
Plaintiff: Central Coast Pipe Lining Inc
Defendant: Pipe Shield Services Ltd, Elastochem Company Specialty Inc, Does, BG Arnold Services TA Bradley Mechanical Services and Pipe Shield USA Inc
Case Number: 2:2013cv00639
Filed: January 29, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F. Eick
Presiding Judge: Otis D. Wright
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 35 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)
October 10, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO CONDUCT DEPOSITIONS 30 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc). Modified on 10/10/2013 (lc).
April 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 17 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendants Motion is DENIED with respect to Central Coasts first claim and GRANTED as to Plaintiffs second through seventh claims. Since Central Coast had several attempts to strengthen its allegations but continually failed, the second through seventh claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants shall file an answer within 14 days of this order. (lc). Modified on 4/19/2013 .(lc).
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 Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Central Coast Pipe Lining Inc v. Pipe Shield USA 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 ]
Defendant: Pipe Shield Services Ltd
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: Elastochem Company Specialty Inc
Represented By: Oliver M Gold
Represented By: Michael B Garfinkel
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: Does
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: BG Arnold Services TA Bradley Mechanical Services
Represented By: Oliver M Gold
Represented By: Michael B Garfinkel
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: Pipe Shield USA 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Central Coast Pipe Lining Inc
Represented By: Martin E Jacobs
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?