Paz Gaming, Inc. v. RCD Holdings Ltd. et al
||Paz Gaming, Inc.
||Anthony James Brown, Does and RCD Holdings Ltd.
||July 19, 2016
||US District Court for the Central District of California
||S. James Otero
|Nature of Suit:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|March 13, 2018
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court is in receipt of the Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to FRCP 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by Plaintiff Paz Gaming, Inc [ECF No. 46 ]. Accordingly, the Court Orders that this matter shall be dismissed pursuant to the Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss.All pending motions are vacated and taken off this Court's calendar. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
|April 26, 2017
JUDGMENT by Judge S. James Otero: Defendant RCD is liable to Plaintiff PAZ in the amount of $560,000.00 due to RCDs interference with PAZs contract with DEQ. Plaintiff PAZ is awarded attorneys fees in the amount of $14,800.00Plaintiff is awarded its legal costs, in the amount of $1,307.00, in accordance with the Application to Tax Costs filed herein. (lc)
|March 21, 2017
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge S. James Otero. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in writing by not later than March 29, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.The court will con sider the filing of the following as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause, on or before the above date: the filing of a motion for entry of default judgment; In accordance with Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, no oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to thecourt's Order may result in the dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED.Additionally, the Court vacates the Scheduling Conference set for hearing on 3/27/17 and deems the Request to continue the Scheduling Conference [ECF # 26 ] moot. (jy)
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
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?