Robert Bryce Stewart III v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al
Robert Bryce Stewart, III |
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. and The Kraft Heinz Company |
2:2020cv01209 |
February 6, 2020 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
John E McDermott |
Virginia A Phillips |
Other Fraud |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
![]() |
Filing 15 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. answer now due 4/15/2020; The Kraft Heinz Company answer now due 4/15/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendants Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp.; The Kraft Heinz Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Spelman, Kate) |
Filing 14 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III. Related Case(s): 2:19-cv-10658-DSF-SK (Nathan, Reuben) |
Filing 13 SERVICE UNDER FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) Executed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III, upon Defendant Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. served on 2/7/2020, answer due 3/27/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the Clerks Office in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Nathan, Reuben) |
Filing 12 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp., identifying Kraft Heinz Company. (Spelman, Kate) |
Filing 11 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company, identifying Berkshire Hathaway Inc.. (Spelman, Kate) |
Filing 10 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. answer now due 3/27/2020; The Kraft Heinz Company answer now due 3/27/2020, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendants Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp.; The Kraft Heinz Company.(Attorney Kate Spelman added to party Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp.(pty:dft), Attorney Kate Spelman added to party The Kraft Heinz Company(pty:dft))(Spelman, Kate) |
![]() |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III, identifying Plaintiff, Robert Bryce Stewart III; Defendant, The Kraft Heinz Company; Defendant, Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp.. (Nathan, Reuben) |
Filing 7 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (lh) |
Filing 6 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp., The Kraft Heinz Company. (lh) |
Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Virginia A. Phillips and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (lh) |
Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III. (Nathan, Reuben) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III. (Nathan, Reuben) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-25273238 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Robert Bryce Stewart, III. (Attorney Reuben D Nathan added to party Robert Bryce Stewart, III(pty:pla))(Nathan, Reuben) |
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 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.