Saudabad Convenience, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

Justia Dockets & Filings First Circuit Rhode Island District Court Saudabad Convenience, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

Saudabad Convenience, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

Plaintiff:	Saudabad Convenience, Inc.
Defendant:	United States Department of Agriculture
Case Number:	1:2013cv00298
Filed:	May 2, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Office:	Providence Office
County:	Providence
Presiding Judge:	Mary M. Lisi
Presiding Judge:	Patricia A. Sullivan
Nature of Suit:	Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action:	05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
February 18, 2014	Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting Defendant USDA's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Mary M. Lisi on 2/18/2014. (Duhamel, John)
December 18, 2013	Filing 14 ORDER administratively terminating Defendant's 6 Motion for Summary Judgment, as the parties have failed to comply with Local Rule 56. Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff have filed a respective statement of undisputed/disputed facts as to Defend ant's motion and Plaintiff's response (pursuant to DRI LR 56(a)(1) through (5)). If Defendant so chooses, Defendant may refile the motion for summary judgment in compliance with Local Rule 56 on or before JANUARY 8, 2014. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Defendant's motion, in compliance with Local Rule 56, on or before 14 days after service of Defendant's motion. So Ordered by Judge Mary M. Lisi on 12/18/2013. (Duhamel, John)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 18, 2014

Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting Defendant USDA's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Mary M. Lisi on 2/18/2014. (Duhamel, John)

December 18, 2013

Filing 14 ORDER administratively terminating Defendant's 6 Motion for Summary Judgment, as the parties have failed to comply with Local Rule 56. Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff have filed a respective statement of undisputed/disputed facts as to Defend ant's motion and Plaintiff's response (pursuant to DRI LR 56(a)(1) through (5)). If Defendant so chooses, Defendant may refile the motion for summary judgment in compliance with Local Rule 56 on or before JANUARY 8, 2014. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Defendant's motion, in compliance with Local Rule 56, on or before 14 days after service of Defendant's motion. So Ordered by Judge Mary M. Lisi on 12/18/2013. (Duhamel, John)

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 Rhode Island District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Saudabad Convenience, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Saudabad Convenience, Inc.
Represented By:	Joseph R. Palumbo, Jr.
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: United States Department of Agriculture
Represented By:	Leslie J. Kane
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?