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
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.
