Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber Technologies et al
| Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund |
| Uber Technologies and Travis Kalanick |
| 4:2017cv05558 |
| September 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| San Francisco |
| Haywood S Gilliam |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
174
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting ( 139 , 141 ) Motions to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2019)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL RE Docket Nos. 134 , 140 , 149 and 159 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2019)
|
|
Filing
167
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 166 Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date on Defendants' ( 139 and 141 Motions to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2019)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 163 Stipulation to Extend ADR Deadline.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2019)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 156 Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date on Defendants' ( 139 , 141 ) Motions to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2019)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 154 (Unopposed) Administrative Motion/Stipulation for Permission to File Two Reply Briefs of Up To 30 Pages Total. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 147 Administrative Motion for Permission to File Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 132 Stipulation selecting Private ADR. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2018)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 130 Stipulation Extending time. Amended Pleadings due by 10/17/2018, Motions due by 11/16/2018, Replies due by 1/8/2019 and Responses due by 12/17/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2018)
|
|
Filing
128
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE ( 23 , 59 , 87 , 97 , 102 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2018)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 124 Administrative Motion for Permission to File a Statement of Recent Decision. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2018)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 84 Administrative Motion for Permission to File Omnibus Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2018)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 48 Stipulation.Motions due by 1/19/2018; Responses due by 2/16/2018; Replies due by 3/9/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 46 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Brown, Kenneth.(terminating docket no. 33 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2017)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 43 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Petrosinelli, Joseph. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2017)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 18 Stipulation. Answer/Motions due by 12/1/2017; Replies due by 2/14/2018; Responses due by 1/17/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2017)
|
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.
