Lorven Technologies, Inc. v. Insight Technologies, Inc. et al
| Lorven Technologies, Inc. |
| Insight Technologies, Inc. and Mark Allen Fukui |
| 2:2017cv01267 |
| June 21, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John A. Mendez |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
43
ORDER signed by Senior Judge John A. Mendez on 09/26/2022 GRANTING 42 Motion to Dismiss with each party to bear its own fees and costs. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)
|
|
Filing
28
STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/18/17: Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 6/22/2018. Discovery due by 8/31/2018. Dispositive Motions filed by 10/9/2018. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/14/2018 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Jury Trial set for 1/28/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/17/2017 GRANTING 23 Motion for Order permitting Service on Insight Technologies, Inc. through California Secretary of State. (Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
8
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 6/21/2017. (mps) [Transferred from njd on 6/21/2017.]
|
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.
