Colby v. Pacific Nutritional Inc et al
| Julieta G Colby |
| Pacific Nutritional Inc, Jason Davis, Jane Doe Davis, Matt Howard, Jane Doe Howard, Duaun Cooke, Jane Doe Cooke, Tiffany Swett, John Doe Swett, Michael Shaefer, Jane Doe Shaefer and Does 1-7 |
| 3:2009cv05172 |
| March 30, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Clark |
| Franklin D. Burgess |
| Plaintiff |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
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
14
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 13 Stipulation filed by Pacific Nutritional Inc. This action is dismissed with prejudice, no award of costs or attorney fees shall be made to any party. Order signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (PL)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER- Court grants Defendant Pacific Nutritional Inc's 8 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer for served Defendants other than PNI to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Answer now due 6/23/2009. Order signed by Judge Benjamin H Settle for Judge Franklin D Burgess pursuant to a transfer by Judge Burgess for this docket item only pursuant to Local General Rule 8(b).(PL)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; Pacific Nutritional Inc answer due 5/18/2009. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton for Judge Burgess.(CMG)
|
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.
