Boyd v. Dow Chemical Company
Plaintiff: Rivers Boyd
Defendant: Dow Chemical Company
Case Number: 3:2010cv04328
Filed: September 24, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Contra Costa
Presiding Judge: Edward M. Chen
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 10 Clerks Notice. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/20/08. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2010)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Boyd v. Dow Chemical Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rivers Boyd
Represented By: Michael Benjamin Nishiyama
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: Dow Chemical Company
Represented By: Gennaro August Filice
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?