Rosas v. Chang et al
| Francisco Rosas |
| Shangri-La Lia Lia Corporation, Hua Ping Chang, Tom Chang and TJK Chang Corporation |
| 5:2013cv01800 |
| April 19, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| None |
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
31
ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh adopting Report and Recommendations as to 28 Report and Recommendations. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2014)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Objections due by 10/14/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/29/2014. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2014)
|
|
Filing
26
INTERIM ORDER re 24 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court filed by Francisco Rosas. Plaintiff's supplemental letter brief due by 1/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/7/2014. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2014)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER Vacating Case Management Conference. 9/24/2013 case management conference vacated. Plaintiff to file motion for entry of default judgment by 10/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/20/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2013)
|
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.
