Duncan v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
| Theo Duncan |
| Scotts Miracle-Gro Company |
| 2:2016cv00293 |
| February 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
33
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 08/31/16 ORDERING that defendant's reply in support of its 23 Motion to Dismiss is due 10/06/16; the hearing on the 23 Motion is RESET for 10/20/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/28/2016 ORDERING that the Idea Submission Agreement, dated 11/14/2018, is to be considered as part of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for purposes of ruling on Scotts Miracle-Gro's mot ion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; Defendant is permitted to file a supplemental brief addressing the Idea Submission Agreement within 3 days after the issuance of this Order; Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss sha ll be filed on or before 8/15/2016; Defendant's reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on or before 9/6/2016; the hearing on Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss, currently set on 9/8/2016, is CONTINUED to 9/22/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
22
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/23/2016 ORDERING that Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is extended to 7/1/2016, Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss is extended to 8/1/2016, and Defendant's deadline to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition is extended to 8/22/2016. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
21
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/22/16. The deadline for the parties to submit a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan is extended to 30 days after the Courts decision on Defendants motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
12
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 04/29/16 ORDERING that defendant's deadline to respond to plaintiff's Complaint is EXTENDED to 05/16/16. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/19/2016 ORDERING 7 that Defendant's deadline to respond to the complaint is EXTENDED to 5/2/2016. (Reader, L)
|
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: Duncan v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Theo Duncan | |
| Represented By: | Randolph Gaw |
| Represented By: | Mark W. Poe |
| 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: Scotts Miracle-Gro Company | |
| 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.
