California Sportfishing Protections Alliance v. The Scotts Company, LLC
| California Sportfishing Protection Alliance |
| The Scotts Company LLC |
| 2:2012cv00973 |
| April 12, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1365 |
| 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
21
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/18/15: The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for the sole purposes of resolving disputes under the Settlement Agreement through and including April 1, 2016, or unless a further order issues before that date. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
18
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/14/13 ORDERING case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties through 12/8/15, for the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the parties of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
15
STIPULATION and ORDER re SETTLEMENT 14 signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/3/2013 ORDERING all dates and hearings VACATED. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for 120 days to allow CSPA to fulfill its duties under the settlement agreement. (Krueger, M)
|
|
Filing
9
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/31/12: The time within which CSPA must serve its Complaint is extended to October 9, 2012. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/16/2012 CONTINUING the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference to 10/15/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., Joint Status Report due 14 days prior to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; ORDERING Plaintiff to file, by 8/13/2012, a proof of service or a sufficient explanation why service was not effected within Rule 4(m)s prescribed service period. (Michel, G)
|
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: California Sportfishing Protections Alliance v. The Scotts Company, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance | |
| Represented By: | Douglas Jonathan Chermak |
| 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: The Scotts Company LLC | |
| 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.
