Flores v. United States of America et al
| Maria Flores |
| United States of America and Does 1 through 20 |
| 3:2015cv00836 |
| April 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| David H. Bartick |
| Gonzalo P. Curiel |
| Personal Injury: Health Care |
| 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
69
ORDER Granting 65 Motion Re-Tax Defendant's Bill of Costs. The motion hearing scheduled for November 17, 2017, is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/7/17. (dlg)
|
|
Filing
52
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Following Bench Trial. The Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/30/17.(dlg)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER Granting 17 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for relief under California's Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15600-15675, and for tortious intentional infliction of emotional distress be GRANTED. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/20/16. (dlg)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER Granting 11 Joint Motion for Additional Time to Allow Parties to Designate Additional Expert. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 4/4/16. (dlg)
|
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 Southern 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.
