Khan et al v. K2 Pure Solutions, LP
Plaintiff: Imtiaz Khan, Tim Morris, Rick Seisinger and Neelesh Shah
Defendant: K2 Pure Solutions, LP
Case Number: 3:2012cv05526
Filed: October 26, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: Contra Costa
Presiding Judge: Phyllis J. Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 137 ORDER granting Joint Dismissal. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/08/2014. All remaining claims and causes of action of all parties are hereby dismissed with prejudice. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2014)
May 13, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 133 AMENDED CIVIL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/13/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2014)
December 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 73 MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE by Hon. William H. Orrick. The motion to dismiss the Third and Sixth Causes of Action against Morris, and the Eighth Cause of Action against all the plaintiffs, is DENIED. The motion to dismiss the Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action against Morris and the motion to dismiss the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action against the remaining defendants is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to strike t he First and Second Causes of Action is DENIED. The motion to strike the prayer for relief on behalf of "any other California employee" is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that no further discovery may be taken before mediation is completed. The parties shall notify the Court of the status of the case within three days after such mediation has occurred. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013)
December 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 94 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION ON NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION by Judge William H. Orrick granting 78 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's October 2, 2013, 70 Order Granting Mot ion for Partial Summary Judgment on Ninth Cause of Action and the accompanying injunction are VACATED. The plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Ninth Cause of Action is DENIED for lack of Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)
November 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 91 STIPULATION AND ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTIONS re 88 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Case Management Conference set for 11/27/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/14/2013. (CMC set for 12/10/13 is vacated) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2013)
October 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION by Judge William H. Orrick granting 45 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their Ninth Cause of Action due to the defendants' use of noncompete agreements against the "strong public policy" of the State of California. The Court ORDERS that the agreements in this case shall have no force or effect and ENJOINS the defendants from seeking to enforce the agreements in any manner, whether in this Court or any other adjudicative body. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)
September 10, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 64 CIVIL PRETRIAL ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/10/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013)
September 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDERING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM re 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Because the plaintiffs raised the issue of whether attorney's fees accru ed in past actions can constitute harm sufficient to confer standing under the UCL, but K2 did not have an opportunity to respond, the Court ORDERS supplemental briefing on that question. The parties shall each file a memorandum of no more than five pages by 9/17/2013, and may reply to each other's briefs, if desired, by 9/24/2013. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/03/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2013)
August 21, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER TO ADDRESS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. At the Case Management Conference on August 28, 2013, the parties should be prepared to address whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The parties should explain the results of any discovery on this issue and, if it is ongoing, when it will be completed. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on August 21, 2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)
May 28, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 34 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2013)
March 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 24 CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER re 21 Case Management Conference - Initial. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/4/13. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2013)
November 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/21/2013. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2013 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/16/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2012)
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: Khan et al v. K2 Pure Solutions, LP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Imtiaz Khan
Represented By: Troy A. Valdez
Represented By: Amy Todd-Gher
Represented By: Erin M. Doyle
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 ]
Plaintiff: Tim Morris
Represented By: Troy A. Valdez
Represented By: Amy Todd-Gher
Represented By: Erin M. Doyle
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 ]
Plaintiff: Rick Seisinger
Represented By: Troy A. Valdez
Represented By: Amy Todd-Gher
Represented By: Erin M. Doyle
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 ]
Plaintiff: Neelesh Shah
Represented By: Troy A. Valdez
Represented By: Amy Todd-Gher
Represented By: Erin M. Doyle
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: K2 Pure Solutions, LP
Represented By: Martin Lukas Pitha
Represented By: Gerard G. Pecht
Represented By: Brian C. Boyle
Represented By: James Alan Neal Smith
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?