Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Vision Service Plan et al
| Aspex Eyewear, Inc. |
| Vision Service Plan, Marchon Eyewear, Inc. and Altair Eyewear, Inc. |
| 2:2010cv00632 |
| March 17, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Morrison C. England |
| Morrison C. England |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Anti-Trust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 Antitrust Litigation |
| Plaintiff |
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
91
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/15/2010 ORDERING 37 that, for the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
79
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/24/10 GRANTING Aspex Eyewear, Inc. leave to file Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed and properly served as of the date the 78 Stipulation was filed. (Owen, K)
|
|
Filing
77
STIPULATION and ORDER 76 signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/13/10: Dft shall answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint by 9/30/10. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
70
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/7/10 ORDERING that leave to file Plaintiff Aspex Eyewear, Inc's AMENDED COMPLAINT is GRANTED. The AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DEEMED FILED and properly served as of the date of Stipulation was filed and electronically served upon counsel for Defendant Vision Service Plan. Defendant Vision Service Plan shall have until 8/27/2010 to file and serve a response to the AMENDED COMPLAINT. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/19/10, ORDERING that pltf's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/11/10: Plaintiff shall file its Reply to the Oppositions to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and supporting documents on or before May 13, 2010, at noon. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/3/10 ORDERING the motion to file the unredacted versions of the Declaration of Dr. James Langenfeld and Exhibit A be filed UNDER SEAL and the redacted versions of the Declaration and Exhibit A to remain on the public docket 38 is GRANTED. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
35
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/27/20140. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
18
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/16/2010 ORDERING 16 Plaintiff will file an Amended Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 4/19/2010; Defendants will file their respective Oppositions to the Motion for Preliminary I njunction on or before 4/30/2010, Plaintiff will file its Reply to the Oppositions to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before 5/11/2010. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be on 5/19/2010. All defendants shall file and serve their responsive pleadings on or before 4/30/2010. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER of RECUSAL and REASSIGNMENT signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/12/2010. Judge England is RECUSING himself and all scheduled currently set are VACATED. This action is REASSIGNED to Judge John A. Mendez for all further proceedings. Clerk to make appropriate adjustments in assignment to compensate for change. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
7
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/30/10 ORDERING that deft's time to respond to the complaint is extended to 4/23/10. (Owen, K)
|
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 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.
