San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., et al
| Melanie G. San Pedro-Salcedo |
| The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company and Nestle USA, Inc. |
| 5:2017cv03504 |
| June 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Nathanael M. Cousins |
| Edward J. Davila |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 |
| 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
141
ORDER Denying 57 Motion to Certify Class; Denying 85 Motion to Strike Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/3/2019. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER Re Administrative Motions to File Under Seal 92 99 104 111 117 119 121 123 124 127 128 Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/20/2019. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2019)
|
|
Filing
109
Order re 108 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/12/2019.(ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2019)
|
|
Filing
72
CORRECTED PRETRIAL ORDER Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila. The Trial Setting Conference set for 5/2/2019 is VACATED. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2019)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative to stay. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/11/2017. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017)
|
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.
