Kaur et al v. City of Lodi et al
| Sukhwinder Kaur, Kulbinder Kaur Sohota and Sarabjit Singh Shergill |
| City of Lodi, City of Lodi Police Department, Mark Helms, Scott Bratton and Adam Lockie |
| 2:2014cv00828 |
| April 3, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Allison Claire |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
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
206
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/29/17 ORDERING for the foregoing reasons, the Officer Defendants' 163 motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. GRANTED with respect to: (i) the Second Claim and (ii) the Eleventh Claim . Otherwise, it is DENIED; the City Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; GRANTED with respect to: (i) the Sixth Claim, as it applies to Chief Helms in his individual capacity, (ii) the Seventh Claim, and (iii) the Eleventh Claim. Otherwise, the City Defendants' motion is DENIED. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
201
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/26/2016 ORDERING that plaintiff's 194 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal as an in limine motion. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 02/16/16 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 108 Motion to Strike. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to strike the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth affirmative defense s. The Court STRIKES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the eighth affirmative defense. As for the first affirmative defense, the Court STRIKES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the first affirmative defense asserted by City of Lodi and Lodi Police Department, and DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to strike the first affirmative defense asserted by Helms. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
167
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/27/16 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel (ECF No. 149 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs shall serve this order on AT&T Mobility; and AT&T Mobility is ORDERED to produce the requested information to plaintiffs within seven (7) calendar days of being served with this order. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/13/16 granting 152 APPLICATION. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT WITNESSES signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/7/16. Plaintiffs' MOTIONS to Exclude Expert Winesses and for Sanctions 110 , 111 , 112 , 121 , 136 , 137 are DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/25/2015 REFERRING 110 , 111 , 112 and 121 Motions seeking sanctions to the Assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rules. The remaining portions of each motion is DENIED under the ripeness doctrine. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/12/15: 104 Clerk's Entry of Default is set aside and defendant Miles Scott Bratton shall file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before November 23, 2015. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/18/2015 GRANTING Plaintiffs' 91 motion to strike; Defendants have 14 days leave from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended answer addressing any affirmative defense. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/15/2015 DENYING 89 Motion to Dismiss. (Michel, G.)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/2/2015 ORDERING Defendant's 79 reconsideration motion and his alternative request for a reduction of the attorney's fees awarded by the Magistrate Judge are DENIED. Plaintiff's request for additional attorney's fees incurred in opposing Defendant's reconsideration motion is GRANTED in part. Further, Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $675 within ten days from the date on which this Order is filed. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
87
AMENDED ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/18/15 amending 86 Order on Motion to Dismiss. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/16/15 ORDERING the Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment provocation claim (Second Claim) is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days leave from the date on which this order is filed to file a Third Amended Complaint addressing the referenced deficiencies in the Fourth Amendment provocation claim. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
82
STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF TELEPHONE RECORDS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/4/15 re: 80 . (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/19/15 ORDERING that plaintiff is GRANTED $15,435.00 in attorney's fees. Within 14 days from the date of this order, defendant Bratton's counsel shall pay to plaintiff's coun sel $15,435.00. Within 14 days from the date of this order, defendant's counsel shall serve and file a sworn affidavit or declaration stating that the above payment has been made, and that it was not billed to any defendant. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/16/2015. Defendants' 63 Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED in its entirety. Manteca and Bratton are ORDERED to comply with Subpoena. However, Manteca's compliance will be excused if Bratton meets compliance obligation instead. Defendant Bratton is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 2 weeks from date of Order why Court should not order him to pay plaintiffs' attorney's fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), to reimburse plaintiffs for having to bring this Motion, or a Statement of Non-Opposition to plaintiffs' Request for fees. Plaintiffs shall, no later than 30 days from date of this Order, submit a Declaration setting forth their attorney's fees incurred on this Motion. If plaintiffs seek sanctions beyond those authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), they must file a separate Motion for them. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/9/15: 50 Motion to Compel is GRANTED, to the extent that it seeks to compel the production of documents and further deposition testimony, and DENIED to the extent it seeks sanctions. Plaintiffs ' request for a verification from defendants is DENIED. Defendants' 58 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal as to individual documents or specific information contained in individual documents. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
46
STIPULATION and ORDER 44 regarding production of person records signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/14/2014. Plaintiffs' counsel hereby agrees that no disclosure of designated materials will occur until either: (a) defense counsel informs them in a timely manner that no protective order will be sought, or (b) a ruling is made on Defendants' 40 Motion for Protective Order. Accordingly, defendants WITHDREW their 40 Motion. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER denying without prejudice 20 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/7/14. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 8/6/2014 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 14 Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 13 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING the plaintiffs fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in any dismissed claim. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 12 Motion for Expedited Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/21/14. (Kastilahn, A)
|
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 California Eastern 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.
