Douglas Kruschen v. First Advantage Corporation et al
| Douglas Kruschen |
| First Advantage Background Services Corp, First Advantage Corporation and Source Support Services, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv02948 |
| April 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| Andrew J. Wistrich |
| Consumer Credit |
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
59
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich re Stipulation for Protective Order 55 IT IS ORDERED THAT good cause having been shown, the Court hereby grants the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. (jm)
|
|
Filing
44
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before October 26, 2016 why this action should not be dismissed as to defendant Source Support Services, Inc. for lack of prosecution. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. This action will be dismissed as to defendant Source Support Services, Inc. if the above-mentioned document(s) are not filed by the date indicated above. (iv)
|
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.
