Lovett v. Skyway Machine Inc.
| Razi Wain Lovett |
| Skyway Machine Inc. |
| 2:2012cv02163 |
| August 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Tehama |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| John A. Mendez |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| 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
31
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/23/17 ORDERING that if Plaintiff's counsel wishes to withdraw, then Plaintiff's counsel shall file a noticed and supported motion to withdraw within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/9/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's counsel to SHOW CAUSE in writing, not later than 12:00 pm on 5/12/2017, as to why he should not be sanctioned for failure to meet and confer regarding the Joint Status Report or to timely file a status report. Plaintiff is ordered to file a status report notifying the Court as to the status of this action not later than 12:00 pm 5/12/2017.(Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/5/17 ORDERING the trial currently set for May 22, 2017 is VACATED. The Parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer and to file a Joint Status Report with this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order notifying the Court as to the status of this action. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/28/2015 ORDERING that due to a conflict with the Court's calendar, the Court hereby VACATES the trial date and the Final Pretrial Conference Hearing set for 6/4/2015. Thus, this matter must b e reset for trial. However, the Court's docket cannot accommodate a trial until summer 2016. Therefore, the Court hereby orders 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 thirty (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. (Zignago, K.)
|
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: Lovett v. Skyway Machine Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Razi Wain Lovett | |
| Represented By: | Larry L. Baumbach |
| Represented By: | Michael Lee Carver |
| Represented By: | Patricia Anne Savage |
| 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: Skyway Machine Inc. | |
| 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.
