Stine v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Eastern District Stine v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Stine v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Marletta Stine
Defendant:	Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2016cv02397
Filed:	October 6, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office:	Sacramento Office
County:	Sacramento
Presiding Judge:	Edmund F. Brennan
Presiding Judge:	Morrison C. England
Nature of Suit:	Other Fraud
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 11, 2017	Filing 8 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/10/2017 ORDERING the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint is CONTINUED to 3/30/2017. (Washington, S) Modified on 1/11/2017 (Washington, S).
November 3, 2016	Filing 6 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/2/16, ORDERING that Samsung's deadline to response to Stine's complaint is STAYED pending further order of the Court. The time for Samsung to response to the complaint by ans wer or Rule 12 motion is EXTENDED and CONTINUED until 30 days following entry of an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Stine's Motion for Transfer of Related Actions to the Central District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. This stay of Samsung's deadline to respond to the complaint is entered without prejudice to either party's ability to later petition the Court to lift the stay. (Kastilahn, A)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 11, 2017

Filing 8 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/10/2017 ORDERING the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint is CONTINUED to 3/30/2017. (Washington, S) Modified on 1/11/2017 (Washington, S).

November 3, 2016

Filing 6 ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 11/2/16, ORDERING that Samsung's deadline to response to Stine's complaint is STAYED pending further order of the Court. The time for Samsung to response to the complaint by ans wer or Rule 12 motion is EXTENDED and CONTINUED until 30 days following entry of an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Stine's Motion for Transfer of Related Actions to the Central District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. This stay of Samsung's deadline to respond to the complaint is entered without prejudice to either party's ability to later petition the Court to lift the stay. (Kastilahn, A)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Stine v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marletta Stine
Represented By:	Lawrence Timothy Fisher
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: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Represented By:	Amy Laurendeau
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.

Why Is My Information Online?