Shanks v. Abbott Laboratories et al
| Aimbrell Shanks |
| Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Vascular Inc., Candy Barajas and Heather Dal Cielo |
| 5:2015cv01151 |
| March 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Nathanael M. Cousins |
| Edward J. Davila |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
41
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 29 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING TO STATE COURT. Due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the case is remanded for further proceedings. The clerk shall remand this action to Santa Clara County Superior Court and close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on July 21, 2016. (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2016)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING 30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for Briefing on Summary Judgment and Expert Deadlines filed by Aimbrell Shanks, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER , 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment .Opposition due by 5/6/2106. Reply due by 5/27/2016. Expert Discovery cutoff due 1/27/2017. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/16/2016. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/9/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015)
|
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.
