Leprino Foods Company v. JND Thomas Company, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff: |
Leprino Foods Company |
Defendant: |
JND Thomas Company, Inc. and Dennis Thomas |
Case Number: |
1:2016cv01181 |
Filed: |
August 9, 2016 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Office: |
Fresno Office |
County: |
Fresno |
Presiding Judge: |
Stanley A. Boone |
Presiding Judge: |
Lawrence J. O'Neill |
Nature of Suit: |
Other Contract |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
May 24, 2017 |
Filing
46
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT as to Defendant: Dennis Thomas; ORDER that Judgment be Issued Against Defendant JND Thomas Company, Inc.; ORDER DIRECTING that the Case be Closed, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/24/2017. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)
|
May 2, 2017 |
Filing
45
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Default Judgment Against Dennis Thomas; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff 14 Days Leave to Amend the Complaint, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/02/2017. (14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)
|
April 11, 2017 |
Filing
43
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39 ) TWO DAY DEADLINE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/10/2017. It is hereby ordered that within two (2) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint that complies with Local Rule 220; and if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will proceed on the first amended complaint. (Valdez, E)
|
February 17, 2017 |
Filing
38
ORDER VACATING MARCH 8, 2017 HEARING AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 31 . Plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint within four days of the date of entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/17/2017. (Hernandez, M)
|
February 1, 2017 |
Filing
35
ORDER re 30 & 31 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/31/17. (Marrujo, C)
|
January 12, 2017 |
Filing
30
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/12/2017. (Hernandez, M)
|
December 29, 2016 |
Filing
28
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING: It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing on or before January 6, 2017, addressing Colorado law as it applies to the claims in this action; why Colorado law would not apply to the claims against Defendant Thomas; and Plaintiffs theory of individual liability for Defendant Thomas citing relevant authority. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/29/2016. (Valdez, E)
|
December 20, 2016 |
Filing
22
ORDER DISCHARGING 19 Order to Show Cause and GRANTING Plaintiff's Request to File Supplemental Declarations and Evidence; December 23, 2016 Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/20/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
|
December 12, 2016 |
Filing
19
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND ADDRESSING DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within five (5) days why the complaint filed August 10, 2016, should not be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to allege diversity jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/12/2016. (Hernandez, M)
|
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 Eastern 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?