Purcell v. Spokeo, Inc.
| Jennifer Purcell |
| Spokeo, Inc. |
| 5:2010cv03978 |
| September 3, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| 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
46
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 14 defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue; terminating 17 alternate FRCivP 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Action shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)
|
|
Filing
40
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 to Modify Scheduling. Plaintiff's opposition to 17 defendant's motion to dismiss due 30 days after court ruling on 14 defendant's motion to transfer venue. Defendant's reply due within 30 days after filing of plaintiff's opposition. Motion hearing re 17 continued to 9/27/2011, 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/27/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER Vacating Hearing re 14 defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue. Matter deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/2/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2011)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER (1) Re-Setting Deadline for Consent or Declination to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge; and (2) Continuing Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/Transfer Venue. Each party's consent or declination due by 1/28/2011. Hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss/transfer venue continued to 3/8/2011, 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/21/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2011)
|
|
Filing
12
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 10 Extending Time for Defendant to Answer or Otherwise Plead and Continuing Initial Case Management Conference. Defendant's answer or other responsive pleading due by 1/10/2011. Initial case management conference continued to 3/15/2011, 1:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/2/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2010)
|
|
Filing
9
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 7 extending time for defendant Spokeo, Inc. to answer or otherwise plead; continuing initial case management conference. Defendant's answer or other response due by 12/1/2010. Initial case management conference continued to 1/11/2011, 1:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/27/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2010)
|
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: Purcell v. Spokeo, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jennifer Purcell | |
| Represented By: | Suzanne L. Havens Beckman |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Spokeo, 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 | [ 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.
