Soto v. Superior Telecom, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: Ricardo Soto
Defendant: Superior Telecom, Inc., 7-Eleven, Inc., DHAMI Corporation and DOES
Case Number: 3:2010cv00135
Filed: January 19, 2010
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Referring Judge: Barbara Lynn Major
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
December 15, 2011 114 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 110 Motion to Certify Class. Court certifies the class as outlined in this Order on Plaintiff's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th causes of action pursuant to FRCP 23. Court does not certify a class on Plain tiff's CLRA claim against STI pursuant to California Civil Code 1781. Court appoints Ricardo Soto as lead plaintiff for the class and appoints the law firm of Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP as class counsel. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/15/2011. (jah)
April 29, 2011 85 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant C Golobal Distributors, Inc's 78 Motion to Dismiss. Court dismisses w/o prejudice Plaintiff's CLRA claim as it relates to 1770(9) and denies Defendant C Global's motion to dismiss as it relates to the remainder of Pla's claims. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/29/2011. (jah)
April 19, 2011 83 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant NetworkIP's 66 Motion to Dismiss. Court dismisses w/o prejudice Plaintiff Soto's CLRA claim as it relates to 1770(9) and denies Defendant NetworkIP's motion to dismiss as it relates to the remainder of Pla's claims. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/19/2011. (jah)
June 3, 2010 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 8 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Under Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6). Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 6/2/2010. (jah)

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

Search for this case: Soto v. Superior Telecom, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ricardo Soto
Represented By: Eric Benink
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Superior Telecom, 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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc.
Represented By: James F Speyer
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DHAMI Corporation
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DOES
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 [ 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?