Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Apple Hill Growers
Defendant: El Dorado Orchards, Inc., Brad Visman, Kandi Visman and Mason Visman
Case Number: 2:2017cv02085
Filed: October 9, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Carolyn K. Delaney
Presiding Judge: Troy L. Nunley
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/12/2022 ORDERING by 5/20/2022, plaintiff's counsel, Catherine A. Straight shall personally pay the Clerk of Court a monetary fine of $250.00 for violating the c ourt's 4/28/2022 order and for other sanctionable conduct. Defendants' 50 motion to quash the subpoena dated 3/28/2022, served on Roberts & Company, Inc. is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 59 motion to compel discovery from defendant EDO is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 49 motion to compel discovery from defendants Brad and Mason Visman is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' 57 motion to compel discovery from plaintiff AHG is GRANTED. (Zignago, K.)
April 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER re El Dorado Orchard's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 57 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/28/2022 ORDERING parties to file an Amended Joint Statement by May 4, 2022. (Streeter, J)
April 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/20/2022 ORDERING Stipulated Protective Order is APPROVED, Once this action is closed, "unless otherwise ordered, the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of" this protective order. (Reader, L)
April 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/14/22 CONTINUING the hearings to 49 Motion to Compel and 50 Motion to Quash to 5/11/2022 at 10:00 AM (via Zoom) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Kastilahn, A)
January 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/27/22 DENYING without prejudice 32 Motion to Compel. The case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota for a settlement conference. In order to schedule the settlement conference, the parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Cota's courtroom deputy, Christy Pine no later than February 2, 2022 regarding their availability to participate in a settlement conference. (Kaminski, H)
January 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 01/07/2022 SUBMITTING 32 Motion to Compel and VACATING the Hearing currently set for 01/12/2022. The court APPROVES the parties' [33.1] Stipulation; EXTENDS the deadline for Fact Discovery to 05/02/2022. All other dates and deadlines in the 29 Scheduling Order remain unchanged. No later than 01/19/2022, the parties shall file a Supplemental Joint Statement. (Rodriguez, E)
November 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/6/2019 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 5 ): GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all claims against Defendants Brad and Kandi Visman in their individual capacity with leave to amend; DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, and fifth claims against Defendant Mason Visman; DENYING Def endants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, and fifth claims against Defendants EDO, Brad Visman, and Kandi Visman based on the "Twin Apple" logo; and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Becknal, R)
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: Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: El Dorado Orchards, Inc.
Represented By: Paul William Reidl
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: Brad Visman
Represented By: Paul William Reidl
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: Kandi Visman
Represented By: Paul William Reidl
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: Mason Visman
Represented By: Paul William Reidl
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 ]
Plaintiff: Apple Hill Growers
Represented By: Catherine Ashley Straight
Represented By: Robert Michael West
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?