Smith v. VMware, Inc. et al
| Dane Smith |
| VMware, Inc. and Carahsoft Technology Corp. |
| 3:2015cv03750 |
| August 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Thelton E. Henderson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729 False Claims Act |
| 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
103
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 96 MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2018)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 94 Stipulation REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF DANE SMITHS MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD: Responses due by 11/1/2017; Replies due by 11/10/2017; Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2017 02:00 PM before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2017)
|
|
Filing
83
Order by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson granting 76 Motion to Compel Arbitration, and dismissing without prejudice. Signed on 01/05/16. (tehlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2016)
|
|
Filing
79
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION HEARING AND VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 76 MOTION to Compel. Motion Hearing set for 12/21/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/21/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2015)
|
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.
