Fox v. Zoomdata, Inc.
| Dean Fox |
| Zoomdata, Inc. |
| 4:2020cv01463 |
| February 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Donna M Ryu |
| Jeffrey S White |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 12, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Certificate of Interested Entities by Dean Fox (Aparicio, Michael) (Filed on 3/12/2020) |
| Filing 10 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Dean Fox. (Aparicio, Michael) (Filed on 3/12/2020) |
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/11/20. Joint Case Management Statement due by 5/29/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/5/2020 11:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2020)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Jeffrey S. White for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by the Clerk on 03/11/2020. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(ajsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2020)
|
| Filing 7 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2020) |
| Filing 6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Zoomdata, Inc... (Martin, Jonathan) (Filed on 3/9/2020) |
| Filing 5 Answer to Removal Complaint filed Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo by Zoomdata, Inc.. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2020) |
| Filing 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case may fall within the Pilot Program for Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Order 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. Case Management Statement due by 5/ 27/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2020 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2020) |
| Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 3/12/2020. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2020) |
| Filing 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Zoomdata, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Marlin Equity Partners, Corporate Parent Logi Analytics, Inc. for Zoomdata, Inc.. (Martin, Jonathan) (Filed on 2/27/2020) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with jury demand from San Mateo Superior Court. Their case number is 19CIV07099. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0971-14225938). Filed by Zoomdata, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Notice to Adverse Party, #2 Declaration of Jonathan D. Martin, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Martin, Jonathan) (Filed on 2/27/2020) Modified on 2/28/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Fox v. Zoomdata, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Zoomdata, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Jonathan David Martin |
| 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: Dean Fox | |
| Represented By: | Michael A. Aparicio |
| 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.
