Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.
| Robert Stevens |
| Corelogic, Inc. |
| 3:2014cv01158 |
| May 7, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Cynthia Bashant |
| Jill L. Burkhardt |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
214
ORDER Denying 211 Motion to Re-Taxation Costs. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 1/11/2017. (dxj)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 107 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Re: Instructions Not To Answer: Defendant is directed that, on or before February 8, 2016, it shall provide Plaintiffs written declarations. Plaintiffs may, on or before February 12, 2016, proceed by deposition by written questions as to the identification of the documents the witness reviewed that were not selected by counsel. Any responses to Plaintiffs deposition(s) by written questions shall be provided to Plaintiffs on or before February 19, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 2/1/16. (dlg)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 101 Motion to Compel Documents, Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories and Completion of Depositions; denying as moot Defendant's 124 Ex Parte Motion to Supplement the Record. Court denies Plaintiffs' 115 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 101 Motion to Compel Documents, Supplemental Interrogatories and Completion of Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 1/14/2016. (jah)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Corelogic, Inc.'s 93 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 12/10/15. (dlg)
|
|
Filing
118
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ORDERED STRICKEN ON 11/17/2015 PER ORDER 118 - ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 43 Motion to Strike Corelogic's Affirmative Defenses re 39 Answer to Second Amended Complaint. All fourteen of Dft Corelogic's affir mative defenses are stricken with leave to amend. Dft Corelogic must file any amended answer revising one or more of its affirmative defenses by 12/1/2015. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 11/17/2015. (jah). Modified on 11/17/2015 - Edited to reflect affirmative defenses as stricken (jah).
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER Denying 53 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Class Certification and Expert Report Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 7/10/15. (dlg)
|
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
| Search for this case: Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robert Stevens | |
| Represented By: | Darren James Quinn |
| Represented By: | Joel B. Rothman |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Corelogic, 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 | [ 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.
