Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc. et al
| Apple Hill Growers |
| El Dorado Orchards, Inc., Brad Visman, Kandi Visman and Mason Visman |
| 2:2017cv02085 |
| October 9, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Carolyn K. Delaney |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| 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
99
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/14/2023 SUBSTITUTING Brad Visman, in his role as special administrator of the Estate of Mason Visman in place of deceased Mason Visman as Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/22/2022 EXTENDING the Deadline as follows: Chris Delfino SHALL appear for a Deposition on or before 09/29/2022. The 30(b)(6) Deposition topics for which Plaintiff has designated Mr. Delfino as representative shall be addressed at the same Deposition, on or before 09/29/2022. The 09/23/2022 Deadline for the Deposition is hereby VACATED. (Rodriguez, E)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/7/22 APPROVING 93 Stipulation to Withdraw Motions for Sanctions. This resolves Plaintiff's 89 motion for sanctions.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/19/2022 GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART 78 Motion to reopen discovery, to compel depositions, and to impose sanctions. GRANTING Motion to reopen the period for discovery for the limited purpose of defense counsel taking the depositions of the 6 witnesses identified in this motion. The deposition period is hereby REOPENED until 12/2/2022. GRANTS defendants' Motion to compel the depositions of the 6 witnesses identified in this motion. These depositions shall take place within the parameters specified in this Order. The court DENIES defendants' motion for sanctions, except to the extent defendants may wish to request reasonable attorneys' fees associated with brin ging this motion, under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Should defense counsel wish to seek these fees, their brief in support of the request (including evidence of the reasonableness of their time and rates) is due no later than 9/2/2022. Plaintiff's counsel may then file any opposition no later than 9/16/2022, and the matter will be taken under submission. Plaintiff's 89 motion for sanctions is hereby taken under SUBMISSION and the hearing is VACATED. Plaintiff' brief in support of the mot ion, or notice of withdrawal of the motion, is due no later than 9/9/2022. defendants' opposition is due no later than 9/23/2022, and plaintiff's optional reply is due no later than 9/30/2022. If the court determines that a hearing is neces sary, it will be scheduled at a later date, and for any further discovery motions by any party in this case, the motion SHALL NOT be filed on the docket until the movant has scheduled a time with the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy for the parties to meet and confer in person in the Sacramento courthouse, with the undersigned available to informally assist in the conferral, and such meet and confer has taken place without resolving the dispute.(Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
74
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/21/2022 EXTENDING the Discovery Depositions Deadline to 7/15/2022. All other existing scheduling deadlines, including the deadline for hearing of dispositive motions, remain unchanged.(Perdue, C.)
|
|
Filing
72
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/1/2022 EXTENDING the deadline for Discovery Depositions to 6/24/2022. All other existing scheduling deadlines, including the deadline for hearing of dispositive motions, remain unchanged. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
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.)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
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.
