Christopher D. Macdevitt et al v. California Pizza Kitchen et al
| Chritopher D. Macdevitt |
| California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. and Does |
| 3:2010cv00815 |
| March 4, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Vaughn R. Walker |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination |
| 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
54
STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION re 53 filed by California Pizza Kitchen, Inc; the parties will bear their own costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 12/14/2010. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER VACATING Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 11/3/10. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2010)
|
|
Filing
49
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 9/28/2010. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2010)
|
|
Filing
27
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: The Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing, no later than January 20, 2010, why one or more parties should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder. In response to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs may, if they so choose, file separate actions against Defendant, with new complaints and filing fees. 20 (pso)
|
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
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.
