Dayton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et. al.
| Judy A Dayton |
| Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Holdings Management Corporation |
| 2:2012cv01945 |
| July 24, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Carolyn K. Delaney |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
65
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/28/15 ORDERING the parties to meet and confer as to whether both parties are willing to attend a settlement conference before the magistrate judge and whether the parties are amenable to consenting to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in order to have their trial concluded in a more timely matter. The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to file a joint statement with this Court within 30 days of the entry of this order notifying the Court as to whether a settlement conference would be beneficial and whether they would like to consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/14/2015 ORDERING 33 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication; Defendants motion is DENIED as to Count I; motion is DENIED as to Count II; motion is GRANTED as to Count III; and motion is DENIED as to Count IV. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/5/14 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 51 and 57 Motions to Strike. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
32
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/23/14: Last day for dispositive motions to be heard is March 27, 2014; Proposed hearing date is March 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.; The Last day for Defendants to file dispositive motions is February 20, 2014. Last day for Plaintiff to file and serve any opposition is March 13, 2014; Last day for Defendants to file and serve any reply is March 20, 2014.(Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/17/13 DENYING 25 Motion to Compel. Reasonable expenses are AWARDED to defendants against plaintiff in the amount of $2,850. Should further discovery disputes arise for which the parties anticipate motion practice, the parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy of the undersigned to arrange a telephonic conference prior to the filing of any discovery motion. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER denying 21 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/29/13: The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record before it on this motion. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/24/2013. By 19 Order filed 7/10/2013, defendants were directed to provide certain information for facilities located within 50-mile radius of Sacramento. Parties seek clarification of meaning of a 50-mile radius. Courts order contemplates an area encompassed by a circle drawn with the center located at 38 34' N, 121 29' W and with a radius of 50 miles (refer to map image in text). (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/10/2013: The motion to compel 16 is granted in part. No later than 8/7/2013, defendants shall produce documents responsive to request nos. 23 and 28 and respond to interrogatory no. 18, for the time period 12/12/2011 to 4/30/2012, and for facilities, including but not limited to stores, call centers, home centers, warehouses, and other support facilities located within a fifty mile radius of Sacramento. Further, the court finds that under the circumstances of this motion, an award of expenses is not warranted. The parties requests for expenses is denied. (Owen, K)
|
|
Filing
12
AMENDED STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/22/13. (Kastilahn, A)
|
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
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.
