Koike et al v. Starbucks Corporation
| 3:2006cv03215 |
| May 15, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Vaughn R. Walker |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
| 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
139
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON SHAUN NGUYEN'S MOTION TO INTERVENE re 138 filed by Starbucks Corporation. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 1/23/2009. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009)
|
|
Filing
123
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 122 filed by Starbucks Corporation. The hearing on motions for class certification and for partial summary judgment presently set for 2/7/2008 shall be continued to 4/10/2008 at 2:30 PM. No further briefing on the motions t o be heard shall be permitted except as to allow for briefing to inform the court of new case law developments and to allow Starbucks to file a response to Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Michael P. Ward. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on 2/1/2008. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2008)
|
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 Northern 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
| Search for this case: Koike et al v. Starbucks Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
