Van Noland et al v. Pelletier et al
Plaintiff: Milton Charles Van Noland and Joy Garner
Defendant: Eric S. Pelletier and Grrr! Limited
Case Number: 2:2009cv02035
Filed: July 22, 2009
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: Morrison C. England
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 119 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/22/10 AMENDING the terms of the 116 Dismissal Order. Accordingly, pltf's 117 Motion for Correction of Order is moot. (Owen, K)
July 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 116 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/14/2010. The action with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41 (a)(1). Clerk directed to close this file, subject to Court's retention of jurisdiction for period 2 years for enforcement of Settlement Agreement. (Marciel, M)
May 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 109 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/12/2010 DENYING 97 Motion as unathorized and cumulative. (Matson, R)
April 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/20/10 ORDERING the motion seeking correction of the district court judge's Order 96 is DENIED as duplicative. (Carlos, K)
April 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/7/2010 ORDERING that a Status Pretrial Scheduling Conference is set for 5/14/2010 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Pltfs shall file a status report by 4/30/2010 and Dfts shall file a status report by 5/7/2010. (Engbretson, K.)
April 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER denying 83 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 4/5/10. (Kastilahn, A)
February 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/25/2010 ORDERING 79 Motion for Discovery is denied as duplicative and moot. (Matson, R)
February 24, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/10 DENYING motions 7 , 18 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 61 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 and 77 ; 20 motion to shorten time is moot. (Manzer, C)
February 4, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/4/2010 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' 60 January 7, 2010 motions for declaration of clarification and for show cause order are DENIED. Plaintiffs' 62 related request for judicial notice fi led January 12, 2010, 64 motion for order shortening time filed January 14, 2010, 65 motion for order shortening time filed January 15, 2010 66 motion for judicial notice and for order filed January 19, 2010, and 68 motion for judicial estoppel and for evidentiary hearing filed January 26, 2010 are DENIED as moot. All motions noticed for hearing on February 5, 2010 are dropped from this court's calendar. (Duong, D)
January 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/09 ORDERING pltfs' motions 50 , 51 , 52 , and 54 are DENIED AS DUPLICATIVE of pending motions; and the hearing on pltf's Motion to Remand and for Sanctions 54 is taken off the court's 1/15/10 calendar. (Carlos, K)
September 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/14/09 ORDERING that Pltfs' 23 Motion for contempt is DENIED without prejudice. Pltfs have filed two motions seeking the recusal of the undersigned, 35 & 37 . Both motions were directed to the assigned district judge and neither was properly noticed in compliance with Local Rule 78-230. Accordingly, the undersigned will not address those motions at this time. (Engbretson, K.)
July 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/30/09 ORDERING that the 11 Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Van Noland et al v. Pelletier et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Milton Charles Van Noland
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: Joy Garner
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: Eric S. Pelletier
Represented By: Matthew G. Jacobs
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: Grrr! Limited
Represented By: Matthew G. Jacobs
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.


Why Is My Information Online?