Fox v. Piche et al
| Richard B. Fox |
| William Piche, Paul N Beaupre, Arthur W Douville, Mark S MConnell and Kenneth I Tan |
| 5:2008cv01098 |
| February 19, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Richard Seeborg |
| Anti-Trust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 15 Antitrust Litigation |
| 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
95
ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENC. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/28/09. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2009)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER re 88 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by Kenneth I Tan. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/16/09. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2009)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER MODIFYING SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 ORDER re 76 Letter filed by Richard B. Fox. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/13/08. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2008)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/28/2009 02:30 PM. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/4/08. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2008)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion to Dismiss (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008)
|
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.
