McCormack v. City and County of Honolulu et al
| Michael S. McCormack |
| City and County of Honolulu, Andy Lazano, Pacheco and John Does 1-10 |
| 1:2010cv00293 |
| May 18, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
211
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 205 . Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 2/20/2014. ~ The Court dismisses the claim for respondeat superior against the City, which is the last remaining claim in this case. Accordi ngly, the clerk of court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER (1) Granting Defendants Cyrel Lozano And Preston Pacheco's Motion To Dismiss And (2) Affirming Magistrate Judge Chang's Order Denying McCormack An Enlargement Of Time To File A Motion Amend Complaint re 85 , 148 . Signed by JUDGE SU SAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/30/11. "The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Cyrel Lozano and Preston Pacheco. Magistrate Judge Chang's order denying McCormack's motion to enlarge the time to file a motion for a second amended co mplaint is AFFIRMED." (gls, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 68 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/26/11. (" Summary judgment is granted in the City's favor on all claims except the respondeat superior claim. The claims against the individual officer Defendants were not the subject of this motion and also remain for further adjudication. All original nine counts from the Complaint remain against individually named Def endants Andy Lazano and Preston Pacheco.") (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND PARTIALLY DENYING DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS 11 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/25/11. (McCormack is granted leave to file an amended Complaint by February 15, 2011. T his order does not address the claims against individual City employees.) (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
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 Hawaii 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.
