Che v. San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Foundation et al
Plaintiff: Ngoc Lam Che
Defendant: San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Foundation and Imwalle Properties, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2017cv00381
Filed: January 25, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
County: Santa Clara
Presiding Judge: Beth Labson Freeman
Presiding Judge: Susan van Keulen
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 78 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/27/2018. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2018)
August 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 58 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS; AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STIPULATED JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 31, 2018. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/16/2018.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2018)
August 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 43 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF EXTENDING MEDIATION DEADLINE, OR COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER 56; GRANTING 44 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS; AND DENYING 45 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/11/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017)
July 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER DENYING 22 DEFENDANT IMWALLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/11/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2017)
May 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER GRANTING 33 DEFENDANT IMWALLE'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF; VACATING 32 PRIOR ORDER DATED MAY 10, 2017; AND REINSTATING 22 DEFENDANT IMWALLES MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/26/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2017)
May 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ORDER STRIKING 22 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER 56; DENYING 25 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND DENYING 28 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR EXTENSION RE: GENERAL ORDER 56. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/10/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Che v. San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Foundation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ngoc Lam Che
Represented By: Pamela Tsao
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: San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Foundation
Represented By: John A. Shupe
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: Imwalle Properties, 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.


Why Is My Information Online?