Bunda Market, Inc. v. Caffebene Inc. et al
| Bunda Market, Inc. and Edward Yoon |
| Caffebene Inc. and Does |
| 2:2015cv04134 |
| June 2, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| S. James Otero |
| Contract: Franchise |
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
71
ORDER by Judge S. James Otero: The stipulation 70 is approved. The entire action, including all claims and counterclaims stated herein against all parties, is hereby dismissed with prejudice, against all parties, with each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (vv)
|
|
Filing
25
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER ACCEPTING PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FILING; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY PENDING ARBITRATION AS MOOT [Docket No. 16] by Judge S. James Otero: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Bunda Market Inc. and Edward Yoon's (together, "Plaintiffs")First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), filed July 7, 2015, and accepts the FAC for filing. Accordingly, Defendant Caffebene Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to D ismiss or Stay Pending Arbitration, filed June 26, 2015, and set for hearing August 3, 2015, is hereby DENIED as moot. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss whether Defendant shall file a renewed motion to dismiss. Defendant has 14 days from the date of this Order to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' FAC. (shb)
|
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 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.
