Hildes v. Andersen
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 26, 2015
CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that whether equitable or statutory tolling, American Pipe tolling may not be extended to Section 13's statute of repose. Accordingly, Hildes' Section 11 claim is barred by the three-year statute of repose. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. As this is Hildes' only remaining claim, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.(kcm)
|April 16, 2014
ORDER: (1) Staying Proceedings 138 ; and (2) Denying as Moot 135 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. Case stayed until pending the Supreme Court's disposition of Police & Fire Retirement System of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/16/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)(jrd)
|November 8, 2010
ORDER Denying Defendant Arthur Andersen's 51 Motion to Dismiss Count II of Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/5/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)
|July 19, 2010
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendant Arthur Anderson's 2 Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III and V; (2) Granting 16 Motion of outside Directors for Leave to Intervene for Limited Purpose; and (3) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint no later than August 9, 2010. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/19/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?