Viglietti v. Apple, Inc
Plaintiff: Rico Viglietti
Defendant: Apple Inc
Case Number: 5:2021cv02412
Filed: April 2, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Edward J Davila
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 2, 2021 Filing 14 Case transferred in from District of Tennessee Western; Case Number 2:20-cv-02773. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received.
April 2, 2021 Filing 13 TRANSFER ORDER, MDL No. 2985. Signed by Karen K. Caldwell, Chair of the Panel on 4/2/2021. (agj)
January 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 [**TEXT ORDER ONLY--NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED**] The parties jointly move to stay this action pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on Defendants Motion to Transfer for Centralized Pretrial Proceedings. (ECF No. #11 .) For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the parties motion. Proceedings in this matter shall be stayed until the JPML rules on Defendants transfer motion. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 1/27/2021. (kll)
January 26, 2021 Filing 11 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Apple, Inc. (Hooper, Sanford)
December 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 [**TEXT ORDER ONLY--NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED**] The parties jointly move for an extension of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs complaint. (ECF No. 8.) For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the parties motion. Defendant shall have through February 5, 2021, to respond to Plaintiffs complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 12/29/2020. (kll)
December 29, 2020 Filing 9 COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document #8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise respond to Complaint filed by Apple, Inc has been filed. For future reference, please note : Filer failed to indicate in docket text "Proposed Order Submitted" as required by local rules. If no order previously emailed to chambers, please do so upon receipt of this notice. Please refer to the #ECF User Manual and #ECF Policies and Procedures. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jae)
December 28, 2020 Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise respond to Complaint by Apple, Inc. (Hooper, Sanford)
November 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 [**TEXT ORDER ONLY--NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED**] Defendant moves unopposed for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs complaint. (ECF No. 6.) For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants motion. Defendant shall have through January 15, 2021, to respond to Plaintiffs complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 11/24/2020. (kll)
November 24, 2020 Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint (Unopposed Consent Motion for Extension of Time) by Apple, Inc. (Hooper, Sanford)
October 23, 2020 Filing 5 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (jae)
October 23, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.73, and Local Rule 72.1, this Court has designated the Magistrate Judges of this District to conduct trials and otherwise dispose of any civil case that is filed in this Court. Your decision to consent, or not consent, to the referral of your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial and entry of a final judgment must be entirely voluntary. The judge or magistrate judge to whom the case has been assigned will not be informed of your decision unless all parties agree that the case may be referred to a magistrate judge for these specific purposes. A less than unanimous decision will not be communicated by this office to either the judge or magistrate judge. The consent form is available on the courts website at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/forms-and-applications.php (jae)
October 23, 2020 Filing 3 NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): Pursuant to Section to 2.1 of the ADR Plan, all civil cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2014, shall be referred automatically for ADR. For compliance requirements, refer to the ADR Plan at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/ADRPlan.pdf (jae)
October 22, 2020 Filing 2 Judge Thomas L. Parker and Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff added. (jae)
October 22, 2020 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ATNWDC-3467250), filed by Rico Viglietti. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Civil Cover Sheet)(Davis, Dudley)

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: Viglietti v. Apple, Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Apple Inc
Represented By: Sanford G. Hooper
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 ]
Plaintiff: Rico Viglietti
Represented By: Dudley Frank Davis
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?