Webster Proctor v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Webster Proctor
Defendant: Nike Retail Services, Inc., Nike USA, Inc. and Nike Inc
Case Number: 4:2011cv06711
Filed: December 29, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
October 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 41 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/17/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2012)
August 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for Wednesday, 8/22/2012 at 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by noon on Monday, 8/20/2012. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, on 08/15/12. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2012)
May 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 27 JOINT STIPULATION AND REVISED ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, Motions terminated: 25 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Webster Proctor, Nike Retail Services, Inc. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/7/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)
March 19, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss. The 4/3/12 hearing date is vacated. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2012)
January 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 3 Extension of Time to Respond per Stipulation. Defendants shall file and serve their response to Plaintiff's complaint on or before February 22, 2012. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2012)
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: Webster Proctor v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. 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: Webster Proctor
Represented By: Michael Hoffman
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: Nike Retail Services, Inc.
Represented By: John Arthur VanHook
Represented By: Simon Lee Yang
Represented By: Sheryl Lyn Skibbe
Represented By: Jonathan Douglas Meer
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: Nike USA, Inc.
Represented By: Jonathan Douglas Meer
Represented By: Sheryl Lyn Skibbe
Represented By: John Arthur VanHook
Represented By: Simon Lee Yang
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: Nike Inc
Represented By: Jonathan Douglas Meer
Represented By: Sheryl Lyn Skibbe
Represented By: John Arthur VanHook
Represented By: Simon Lee Yang
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?