Nevarez et al v. Peacock Gap Holdings LLC et al
Plaintiff: Abdul Nevarez and Priscilla Nevarez
Defendant: Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Knight-Calabasas LLC and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE
Case Number: 3:2017cv03480
Filed: June 15, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: Alameda
Presiding Judge: Kandis A. Westmore
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 19 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 18 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re CONSENT DECREE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ONLY filed by Priscilla Nevarez, Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Abdul Nevarez. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 2/27/18. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018)
December 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/26/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/12/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2017)
November 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 11 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME UNDER FRCP RULE 12(f) filed by Priscilla Nevarez, Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Abdul Nevarez. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/7/17. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2017)
September 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 9 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES re 8 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER For Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer Complaint and for Parties to Conduct General Order 56 Site Inspection filed by Priscilla Nevarez, Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Abdul Nevarez. Answer due by 10/6/17 and joint inspection to be completed by 10/20/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/26/17. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017)
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: Nevarez et al v. Peacock Gap Holdings LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Abdul Nevarez
Represented By: Catherine M. Cabalo
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: Priscilla Nevarez
Represented By: Catherine M. Cabalo
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: Peacock Gap Holdings LLC
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: Knight-Calabasas LLC
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: DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE
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?