Dargan v. Nodus
Plaintiff: Margaret E Dargan
Defendant: Gary V Ingram and Pamela M Nodus
Case Number: 2:2008cv01714
Filed: November 26, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: XX US, Outside District
Presiding Judge: Robert S. Lasnik
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
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
August 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 108 ORDER vacating 96 Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
July 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 105 SECOND ORDER Extending Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
June 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 99 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Temporary Restraining Order; re parties' 97 Stipulated Motion, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
May 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 91 SECOND AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES by Judge Robert S. Lasnik : Jury Trial is set for 2/5/2018 before Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Length of nonjury trial: 2 days; Amended Pleadings due by 7/26/2017, Expert Witness Disclosure/Rep orts under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 7/26/2017, Discovery completed by 9/24/2017, Attorney settlement conference to be held by 10/8/2017, Dispositive motions due by 10/24/2017, Motions in Limine due by 12/22/2017, Pretrial Order due by 1/10/2018, Trial briefs to be submitted by 1/17/2018. (SWT)
February 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 89 STIPULATION AND ORDER requesting mediation by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS)
May 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER granting in part plaintiff's 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
May 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER granting plaintiff's 35 Motion to supplement record in support of motion for preliminary injunction by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
March 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER VACATING 26 Order to Show Cause (Nodus). The Order to Show Cause is hereby vacated in light of defendant's response and receipt of the courtesy copy, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (VP)
March 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Dft (Nodus) is hereby ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with Local Rule 10(e)(8) and a prior order of this Court 5 , both of which require courtesy copies of lengthy filings for chambers. Dft shall respond to this order to show cause no later than five days from the date of this Order, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (VP)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dargan v. Nodus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Margaret E Dargan
Represented By: Beth Marie Andrus
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: Gary V Ingram
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: Pamela M Nodus
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?