Tung Tai Group v. Oblon et al
Tung Tai Group |
Aaron Oblon, Devonshire Metals, Corp and Hasmukh D. Patel |
5:2008cv05370 |
November 26, 2008 |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
Contract: Other Office |
Santa Clara |
Jeremy Fogel |
Richard Seeborg |
Both |
Diversity |
28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 62 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 8/30/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2010) |
Filing 60 ORDER by Judge JEREMY FOGEL denying 45 Motion to Vacate and denying 50 Motion to Vacate. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2010) |
Filing 47 ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 5/3/2010. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2010) |
Filing 42 ORDER VACATING HEARING AND GRANTING 36 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Jeremy Fogel. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2010) |
Filing 25 ORDER GRANTING 23 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/17/2009 is CONTINUED to 5/22/2009 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/10/09. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2009) |
Filing 22 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 21 Selecting ADR Process, Case referred to Private ADR. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/3/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2009) |
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.