Irving v. Ebix Software India Private Limited et al
| Craig A. Irving |
| Ebix Software India Private Limited and Ebix, Inc. |
| 3:2010cv00762 |
| April 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Barbara Lynn Major |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
44
Amended ORDER: (1) granting 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (2) Setting Status Hearing: The parties shall appear before this Court on 5/12/11 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 6. The parties shall be prepared to discuss their plans for moving this case to a full conclusion. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/12/11.(lmt) (jcj).
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss: Defendants' motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Complaint and granted insofar as it seeks a stay. The Court stays this case as to all issu es other than the effect of the collateral agreement. Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment with respect to the collateral agreement by 10/1/10. Once that motion has been decided, the Court will send the parties to arbitration with respect to the arbitrable issues noted above. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/10/10. (lmt)
|
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 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.
