Tang v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Plaintiff: Rock Tang
Case Number: 4:2013cv02043
Filed: May 3, 2013
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: Oakland Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Phyllis J. Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
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
August 2, 2013 15 Opinion or Order of the Court CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER re 14 Case Management Conference - Initial. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/2/13. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

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: Tang v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rock Tang
Represented By: Emily Anne Knoles
Represented By: Daniel James Cravens
Represented By: Michael David Burstein
Represented By: Yosef Peretz
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 [ 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.