Browse Cases

Northern District of California

Plaintiff Pifferini filed a motion to alter judgment in a civil case against the City of Eureka in the Northern District of California. The motion seeks to modify or overturn a prior judgment, potentially based on new evidence or legal arguments. The case is docketed as 24-cv-09191.

Central District of California

The United States Court of Appeals issued a memorandum in the Darren Norman v. C. Wu civil case in the Central District of California. This memorandum marks a procedural milestone, possibly addressing appellate issues or clarifying legal positions. The case number is 17-cv-05299.

Northern District of California

Trimble Inc. filed a motion to terminate litigation against Unity Software in the Northern District of California. The motion seeks to close the case, likely reflecting settlement or resolution between the parties. The case number is 25-cv-10401.

Central District of California

The Central District of California court granted a motion for reconsideration in the Yeezy LLC civil case, allowing the parties to submit new arguments or evidence. This procedural development reopens issues previously decided. The case is docketed as 24-cv-05547.

Central District of California

Majestic Realty and Conway submitted a joint discovery plan in the Central District of California to comply with Rule 26(f). The plan aims to organize and streamline discovery, ensuring both parties meet court deadlines and procedural requirements. The case number is 25-cv-10154.

Northern District of California

Villafana filed for miscellaneous relief in a civil case pending in the Northern District of California. The specific relief sought remains unspecified, suggesting a broad or procedural request within the litigation. The case docket number is 25-cv-01310.

Central District of California

Soho Hotel Owner, LLC sued the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) in the Central District of California, challenging agency actions that affected the plaintiff. The dispute likely involves SBA loan programs or administrative decisions impacting Soho Hotel Owner's business interests. A recent court

Central District of California

Proof of service was filed in Sexton v. Superhumn, Inc. in the Central District of California, confirming that legal documents were properly served on defendants. This procedural step advances the civil case by establishing that defendants received notice. The case continues with active litigation.

Central District of California

The court granted a motion to dismiss in Milan Hassid v. Alex and Ani, LLC, terminating the lawsuit. The dismissal ends the plaintiff's claims against the defendants in the Central District of California. The ruling resolves the dispute without trial or further proceedings.

Central District of California

Franz Haas GmbH/srl v. Winebow Inc. proceeds under a United States Court of Appeals (USCA) mandate in the Central District of California. The case follows appellate instructions, indicating ongoing compliance with higher court orders. The docket reflects continued litigation consistent with the mandate.

Central District of California

A request for attorney appearance or reassignment was filed in a sealed criminal case in the Central District of California. The filing indicates a change or confirmation in legal representation for a defendant in a federal criminal matter. Details remain confidential due to the sealed status.

Central District of California

iRent Inc. and State Farm submitted a stipulation and proposed order in a civil case in the Central District of California. The stipulation concerns undisclosed details but reflects cooperation between the parties on procedural or substantive issues. The filing may affect case management or resolution.

Central District of California

Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical sued Navinta LLC and others in the Central District of California, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and other torts. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misconduct by ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC. and co-defendants, including Brian Hoolahan. The case involves complex

Central District of California

Plaintiff Ivo Tanku Tapang filed a notice of lodging in Tapang v. Nsahlai, a civil case in the Central District of California. The filing signals the plaintiff's intent to participate in the litigation and may relate to submitting evidence or documents for court consideration. The case remains active with ongoing

Central District of California

In United States v. Ciobanu, the defendants face allegations of violating bond conditions under CR-80 in the Central District of California. The accusations concern non-compliance with bond terms, which may lead to additional legal consequences or detention. The case focuses on enforcement of bond requirements.

Central District of California

The United States scheduled hearings in a civil case involving Cureton in the Central District of California. These hearings will allow both parties to present arguments and evidence, advancing the litigation process. The scheduling marks a procedural step toward resolving the dispute.

Central District of California

The Central District of California granted an extension of time in Pierce v. Kilongo, allowing the parties additional time to meet litigation deadlines. The order affects the case schedule but does not address the substantive claims or disputes between the parties. The case remains active with further developments

Central District of California

The United States Court of Appeals issued a mandate in USA v. Michaels, docket number 16-cr-00076 in the Central District of California. The mandate sets procedural requirements or deadlines following appellate review in this civil case. The case proceeds under appellate court directives.

Central District of California

A deficiency claim related to a writ of execution was noted in Welter v. Hurt, docket number 23-cv-02627 in the Central District of California. The court provided an optional HTML form to address the deficiency. This issue may affect enforcement of the writ until resolved.

Central District of California

The Central District of California granted an extension to file an answer in Nana Si v. Emmel, docket number 25-cv-09089. The extension allows the defendant more than 30 additional days beyond the original deadline to respond to the complaint. This procedural relief delays immediate case progression.