Bhatia v. Wig et al
| Lal Bhatia |
| WIG Properties, LLC and Manmohan K. Wig |
| 4:2010cv00072 |
| January 6, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| Kern |
| Saundra Brown Armstrong |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Defendant |
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
77
ORDER, Motions terminated: 74 MOTION to Compel filed by Lal Bhatia, 75 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Lal Bhatia., ORDER Cancelling Deadline. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/9/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2010)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 64 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2010)
|
|
Filing
63
JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/13/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2010)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 37 Motion COMMENCE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSCOMMENCE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; denying 10 Motion COMMENCE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSCOMMENCE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; denying 20 Motion to Relate Case (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER re 42 MOTION Finding Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant filed by WIG Properties, LLC, Manmohan K. Wig, 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims filed by WIG Properties, LLC, Manmohan K. Wig. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/23/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)
|
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.
