3:26-cv-00681 Cooke v. Salesforce, Inc.
Case Summary
The case pertains to a stipulation without a proposed order in a federal court action. A stipulation typically involves parties agreeing to certain facts or legal issues, but the lack of a proposed order indicates that no formal decision has been made yet.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
3 events
Coverage
3 articles
Sources
1
Key Issues
- • Stipulation without proposed order
- • Cooke v. Salesforce, Inc
- • Federal court case 26-cv-00681
update What Changed This Week
Case Timeline
3 events5:26-cv-00681 David Pinedo v. Target Corporation et al
In the legal case of David Pinedo v. Target Corporation et al, the parties have submitted a Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan, which outlines their proposed methods for conducting discovery during the litigation.
8:26-cv-00681 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.17.20
In a legal dispute between Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and an anonymous subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.17.20, the court has granted a leave to proceed with the discovery matter, which involves the exchange of information and evidence between the parties involved.
3:26-cv-00681 Cooke v. Salesforce, Inc.
In the court case Cooke v. Salesforce, Inc., the parties have reached a stipulation without a proposed order, as indicated by the 'Stipulation without Proposed Order (17)' description. This means that both sides have agreed on certain terms of the case without formally submitting a proposed order for the court's consideration.
Coverage Timeline
Press Coverage
5:26-cv-00681 David Pinedo v. Target Corporation et al
Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ( 12
8:26-cv-00681 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.17.20
Leave re Discovery Matter ( 10
3:26-cv-00681 Cooke v. Salesforce, Inc.
Stipulation without Proposed Order ( 17