Raj Shah v. Vitalstream, Inc
| Raj Shah |
| Vitalstream, Inc |
| 8:2008cv00945 |
| August 20, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Southern Division - Santa Ana Office |
| Orange |
| David O Carter |
| Ralph Zarefsky |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2008. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Entry of Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims with Prejudice, re: Order,,, Terminated Case,, #5 , filed by Plaintiff Raj Shah. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit "A")(Petrofsky, Melissa) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Entry of DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, re: Order,,, Terminated Case,, #5 , filed by Plaintiff Raj Shah. (Petrofsky, Melissa) |
Filing 5
ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, re Joint MOTION for Order for Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with Prejudice #4 : (NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Parties' Joint Motion Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice by November 30, 2008; 3. If Plaintiff does not file and serve Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice by November 30, 2008, the case will be subject to reopening by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (rla)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Order for Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with Prejudice ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendant Vitalstream, Inc. Motion set for hearing on 10/20/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order re the Parties' Joint Motion Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with Prejudice, #2 Declaration of Mary E. Ahrens in Support of Joint Motion Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with Prejudice, #3 Declaration of Stephen C. Kimball in Support of Joint Motion Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Action with Prejudice)(Ahrens, Mary) |
| Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) #1 filed by Defendant Vitalstream, Inc.(Ahrens, Mary) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Raj Shah. (smi) (lwag, ). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendant Vitalstream, Inc. Filing fee $ 350 PAID. Filed by Plaintiff Raj Shah.(smi) (lwag, ). |
| 20 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint #1 as to Defendant Vitalstream, Inc. (smi) |
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
| Search for this case: Raj Shah v. Vitalstream, Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Raj Shah | |
| Represented By: | Melissa Ann Petrofsky |
| Represented By: | Stephen C Kimball |
| 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: Vitalstream, Inc | |
| Represented By: | Mary E Ahrens |
| 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.
