Berg vs. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Plaintiff: Glenda Berg
Defendant: Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2015cv00361
Filed: September 15, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office: Hawaii Office
County: Honolulu
Presiding Judge: KEVIN S.C. CHANG
Presiding Judge: HELEN GILLMOR
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 203 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHANG'S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 192 ) - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLM OR on 11/30/2017. "Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 74.1, the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMP LAINT (ECF No. 186 ) is AFFIRMED. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHANG'S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 192 ) is DENIED." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
April 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 141 ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT BED BATH & BEYOND, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 93 ) re 133 - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 4/24/2017. "Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.'s Motion f or Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.'s Motion to for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED as to Count II. Defendant Bed Bath & Bey ond, Inc.'s Motion to for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93) is DENIED as to Counts I and III." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
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 Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Berg vs. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Glenda Berg
Represented By: Lunsford D. Phillips
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: Bed Bath & Beyond, 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 ]
Defendant: Stanley Black & Decker, 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.


Why Is My Information Online?