Hamidi v. City of Kirksville, Missouri et al
| Amir Hamidi |
| City of Kirksville, Missouri and Brad Selby |
| 2:2014cv00087 |
| September 2, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Hannibal Office |
| Adair |
| E. Richard Webber |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
135
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri, David Jacobs, Mike LaBeth, Mari MacComber, Bob Russel, Brad Selby, and Clark Wilsons Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 118] is GRANTED. IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that Defendants' Combined Motion for Attorneys' Fees as the Prevailing Party [ECF No. 123] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall be awarded $43,178.00 in attorneys fees and $2,209.21 in costs. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on November 4, 2016. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri, David Jacobs, Mike LaBeth, Mari MacComber, Bob Russel, Brad Selby, and Clark Wilson's counsel shall submit an exhibit detailing the for each attorney time records specifying the date, the hours billed, and the nature of the work by October 24, 2016. Response to Court due by 10/24/2016. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on October 13, 2016. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi's Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply [ECF No. 129 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidi is allowed to file what is in effect a sur-reply to Defendants' reply, and shall file this motion by October 12, 2016. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/5/2016. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri, David Jacobs, Mike LaBeth, Mari MacComber, Bob Russel, Brad Selby, and Clark Wilsons Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 80] is GRANTED. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidis Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Conform with the Evidence [ECF No. 94] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on July 22, 2016. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
83
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 76 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 5/19/2016. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri and Brad Selby's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, and VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 55] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, i n part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Mary Macomber, Bob Russel, Mike LaBeth, David Jacobs, and Clark Wilson's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, and VI of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED, in part, and DE NIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief to require Plaintiffs property be rezoned with no stipulations not delineated within the Kirksville Code is DISMISSED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count VI of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint against Defendants in their official capacities is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on March 11, 2016. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 38 ], and Motion for Leave to Add Additional Parties [ECF No. 39 ]. (See Full Order.) The Cou rt will allow Plaintiff's request to file a Second Amended Complaint and to add parties, except as it applies to Troy Paino. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 38 ], and Motion for Leave to Add Additional Parties [ECF No. 39 ] are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The parties shall file an amended case management order within thirty days of this order accommodating the amendment and addition of parties, should any dates need to be extended. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 10/21/2015. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Memorandum Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Referral. [ECF No. 46 ] Defendants have come to the conclusion that ADR has no reasonable chance of being product ive and request the Court for relief as the Court deems appropriate. The Court understands this memorandum as a request by the Defendant to vacate ADR. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five days of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiffs shall show cause why this Court should not submit an order to vacate ADR. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 9/24/2015. (CBL)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of City of Kirksville, Missouri and Brad Selbys Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Amir Hamidis claims against Defendants City of Kirksville, Missouri and Brad Selby on Counts II and III are DISMISSED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on April 28, 2015. (MCB)
|
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 Missouri 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.
