Peck et al v. Cingular Wireless LLC et al
| Jared Peck and James Bowden |
| Cingular Wireless LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services Inc, New Cingular Wireless Services Purchasing Company LP and New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC |
| 2:2009cv00106 |
| January 23, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Thomas S. Zilly |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity |
| Both |
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
92
ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in both cases, C06-1325TSZ, docket no. 193 , and C09- 106TSZ, docket no. 83 , and STAYS both of these actions pending further Order of the Court. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report ("JSR") within fourteen (14) days of any determination by the arbitrator, or by September 1, 2013, whichever occurs earlier. (CL)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER granting 62 Motion for Bill of Costs in the amount of $ 1,992.45 against Plaintiff James Bowden by Clerk Bruce Rifkin.(BR)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, docket no. 19 , is GRANTED; Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, docket no. 40 , is DENIED, Plaintiff's motion for class certification, docket no. 34 , is STRICKEN as moot. (CL)
|
|
Filing
27
STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Based on the stipulation of the parties all claims by pltf Jared Peck against dfts in this case are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. Counterclaims of dfts against dft Jared Peck are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. Dfts' 10 Motion for Summary Judgment is Stricken as moot.(CL)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The Court DENIES Pltf's 9 Motion to Remand. (CL).
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to Show Cause by March 27, 2009, why this matter should not be remanded to King County Superior Court. Plaintiffs' motion for remand, docket no. 9 , is RENOTED to March 27, 2009; Defendants' motions for summary judgment, docket nos. 10 and 19 , are RENOTED to April 17, 2009.(CL)
|
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 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.
