Hollaway v. Gemini Direct, LLC

Docket 2:24-cv-00644

Filed
2024-02-28
Terminated
2024-11-13
Case type
cv

Outcome

statistical closing

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=72 OFFICE=2 DOCKET=2400644 FILEDATE=02/28/2024 DISP=18, PROCPROG=1, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 DAWN B. EYERLY (BAR NO. 185074) Dawn.eyerly@saul.com 2 SAUL EWING, LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500 3 Los Angeles, California 90067 4 Telephone: (310) 255-6100 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200 5 6 Attorney for Defendant GEMINI DIRECT, LLC d/b/a/ CREDIT INNOVATION GROUP 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL E. HOLLAWAY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00644-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 v. 14 GEMINI DIRECT, LLC d/b/a/ CREDIT INNOVATION GROUP, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is a Request to Seal a Document attached to Defendant’s Motion to 19 Compel Arbitration submitted by Defendant, Gemini Direct, LLC d/b/a/ Credit Innovation Group. 20 Defendant’s Request to Seal indicates the following document should be filed under seal: 21 Document 5.2: Declaration of Marion Timpson, pages 3-14 22 Defendant has shown compelling reasons for the requests. See Kamakana v. City of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The court hereby orders 24 that the Declaration of Marion Timpson (ECF 5.2) attached to Defendant’s Motion to Compel 25 Arbitration is sealed. Defendant shall file a redacted copy of the sealed document to remain 26 unsealed on the docket promptly and within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order. 27 /// 1 This resolves ECF No. 16. 2 SO ORDERED. 3|| DATED: May 31, 2024. 5 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 9 10 11 12 (14 1S < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.