Romero et al v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
| Juan Romero and Frank Tiscareno |
| Securus Technologies, Inc. |
| 3:2016cv01283 |
| May 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Mitchell D. Dembin |
| Jeffrey T. Miller |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 0227 |
| 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
184
ORDER on 179 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Order on 181 Motion for Costs, Incentive Awards, and Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 11/19/2020. (sjt)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER granting 175 Motion Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Final Approval Hearing set for 9/28/2020 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5D before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 6/16/2020. (sjt)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER granting 160 Motion to Stay. Case stayed until the filing of an application to lift the stay partially or in its entirety if future circumstances warrant. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 4/17/2019. (sjm)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER DENYING 101 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING IN PART 122 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 11/21/2018. (sjm)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER denying 99 Motion to Amend/Correct Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/9/2018. (sjt)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER granting 115 Defendant's Ex Parte MOTION For an Order Preventing the Deposition of Non-Party Frank Clamser From Proceeding on June 28, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 6/27/18. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
105
Order Striking Document 104 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Frank Tiscareno, Juan Romero, Kenneth Elliott as untimely filed. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 6/14/2018.(gac)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATES: Motion Hearing re 99 MOTION to Amend/Correct: 93 Order on Motion to Certify Class; 101 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment is vacated and continued to 7/2/2018 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5D before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on May 22, 2018.(gac)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 62 Motion to Certify Class and to Appoint Class Counsel. Court denies the motion without prejudice because Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently identify an ascertainable and manageable class. In the event Plaintiffs' additional discovery efforts prove fruitful, they may renew their motion for class certification within 90 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 4/12/2018. (jah)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER denying 70 Defendant's Motion for relief from non-dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 1/05/2018. (jpp)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER denying 69 Motion to modify Plaintiff's deadline to amend pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/20/2017. (jpp)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER denying 53 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 10/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 59 Joint MOTION for Discovery Determination of Dispute. This Joint Motion presents Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, production of documents and answers to requests f or admission. As provided herein, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that the Court has ordered further responses, production and answers, such must be forthcoming within 14 days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/16/17. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER denying 32 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery (Expedited) and Application for Order to Preserve and Restore Evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 4/17/2017. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER Granting Defendant's 31 Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. As Plaintiffs have had multiple attempts to adequately plead fraud based on information conveyed to the Sheriff and have not been able to do so, the court's order is without leave to amend. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 3/29/2017. (rlu)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in Part Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. The court denies Defendant's motion as to the 5/29/2012, "Customer Integrity Pledge" and 11/13/2015, press release, and gran ts Defendant's motion as to any information conveyed to the Sheriff. If Plaintiff can satisfy Rule 9(b) and California law in alleging specific misrepresentations that Defendant made to the Sheriff, it may file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 1/26/2017. (rlu)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Defendant's 11 Motion to Dismiss and Denying Defendant's 12 Motion to Strike Class Allegations. The court dismisses, with leave to amend, Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action (Fraud and I ntentional Misrepresentation). The court dismisses, without leave to amend, Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action (Conversion). The court denies the remainder of Defendant's motion to dismiss, and the court denies Defendant's motion to strike. If Plaintiffs wish to file a second amended complaint to address their claim for intentional misrepresentation, they must do so within fourteen days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 10/24/2016. (rlu)
|
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.
