Slay v. CVS Caremark Corporation
| Mark A. Slay |
| CVS Caremark Corporation |
| 1:2014cv01416 |
| September 10, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Fresno Office |
| Stanislaus |
| Gary S. Austin |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
29
RELATED CASE 28 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/20/2015. Action denominated 1:15-CV-1315 GEB SAB is REASSIGNED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean for all further proceedings. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed shall be shown as 1:15-CV-1315 TLN EPG. Clerk to make appropriate adjustment to compensate for reassignment. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
24
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/28/2015 ORDERING 22 Second Amended Complaint shall be filed within 7 days of the filing of this order; and Defendant shall answer within 21 days of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
21
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/21/15 ORDERING that all discovery with the exception of expert Discovery, shall be completed by 1/8/2016. Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 3/10/2016. All dispositive mot ions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than 7/14/2016. The Final Pretrial Conference is SET for 10/6/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Tro y L. Nunley. The parties shall file, not later than 9/29/2016, a Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement. A Jury Trial is SET for 12/12/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. The parties estimate a trial length of five to seven (5-7) days. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/1/2015 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part defendant's 3 Motion to Dismiss and / or Strike plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
6
STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request to continue the Status Conference re Consent currently set for 9/29/2014 to 9/30/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (GSA) before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/24/2014. (Rooney, M)
|
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 Eastern 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: Slay v. CVS Caremark Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: CVS Caremark Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Douglas Roger Hart |
| Represented By: | Jennifer B Zargarof |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark A. Slay | |
| Represented By: | Lisa Blanco Jimenez |
| Represented By: | Michael R. Tener |
| 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.
