Willis v. Fitbit, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Baron Willis
Defendant: Fitbit, Inc. and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive
Case Number: 3:2019cv01377
Filed: July 23, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Presiding Judge: William V Gallo
Referring Judge: Dana M Sabraw
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1453
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 29, 2019 Filing 5 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay the Action by Fitbit, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration of David McDowell, #3 Index of Exhibits to McDowell Declaration, #4 Exhibit 1 to McDowell Declaration, #5 Exhibit 2 to McDowell Declaration, #6 Declaration of Jeffrey Bonham, #7 Index of Exhibits to Bonham Declaration, #8 Exhibit A to Bonham Declaration, #9 Exhibit B to Bonham Declaration, #10 Exhibit C to Bonham Declaration, #11 Exhibit D to Bonham Declaration, #12 Exhibit E to Bonham Declaration, #13 Exhibit F to Bonham Declaration, #14 Exhibit G to Bonham Declaration)(McDowell, David). (aef).
August 2, 2019 Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Fitbit, Inc. No Corporate Parents/Interested Parties. (McDowell, David) (aef).
August 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER Granting #2 Joint Motion to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court grants the stipulation and joint motion and hereby orders that the deadline for Fitbit to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint be extended to and including August 29, 2019. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 8/2/2019. (aef)
August 1, 2019 Filing 2 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Fitbit, Inc.. (McDowell, David) (aef).
July 23, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from San Diego Superior Court- County of San Diego, case number 37-02019-00031494-CU-BT-CTL. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-12753067.), filed by Fitbit, Inc.The new case number is 3:19-cv-01377-DMS-WVG. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo are assigned to the case.(jxv) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2019: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Declaration Of Mandy Lau, #4 Exhibit 1- State Court Complaint); NEF Re-Generated (jxv). (sjt).

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: Willis v. Fitbit, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Baron Willis
Represented By: David G. Jensen
Represented By: David Garth Jensen
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: Fitbit, Inc.
Represented By: David F McDowell
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: DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive
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.


Why Is My Information Online?