Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Grubhub Inc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
410 Anti-Trust | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to the 07/30/2026 video hearing. The call-in number is (650) 479-3207 and the access code is 2304 584 6180##. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the hearing with instructions to log into the hearing. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/29/2026)
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:On review of Plaintiff Grubhub's motion 208 in limine challenging the relevancy of the IPOs, R. 208, and the defense pre-response, R. 221, a video hearing is set for 07/30/2026 at 10 a.m. Central Time. The hearing will address footnote 1 on page 1 of the motion, in which the signatory counsel says that the motion was filed "at the instruction of Grubhub and its incoming trial counsel," R. 208 at 1 n.1, as well as the procedural irregularity of not having conferred with the defense on the motion (at least the defense so asserts, R. 221 at 1). The Court did permit an undisclosed counsel to assist Grubhub during the ex parte sessions of the settlement conference, because that process is off the record and is ex parte, and counsel was conferring with another client to be appropriately cautious on an ethical issue. But it is quite another thing to submit filings without an appearance, for which permission is required, Local Rule 83.17, and which triggers Civil Rule 11(b) obligations. Federal courts typically encounter ghost-written briefs with unrepresented litigants, but would not expect this type of conduct from experienced counsel. Indeed, on preliminary review of the motion, R. 208, it appears to reflect fundamental misunderstandings of motions in limine: (a) the motion takes general, high-level principles of law that cabin general, high-level arguments, neither of which would operate to block the relevancy of the IPOs on the joint-venture question; and (b) the motion in effect asks the Court to act as the fact-finder in place of the jury. In any event, if the motion is permitted to stand, the in-limine briefing schedule will be followed, so a defense response and follow-up reply will be permitted (but not from a lawyer without an appearance on file). Video-hearing information will follow.Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 07/29/2026)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.