Brown v. Esquire Plaza, Inc.
| 8:2010cv00058 |
| February 10, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12131 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| None |
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
22
ORDER OF DISMISSAL regarding Notice of Case Dismissal 21 the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and with the parties to be responsible for their own costs and attorney fees as ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SED)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER upon notice of settlement 19 that by September 2, 2010, the parties shall electronically file a joint stipulation for dismissal. Absent compliance with this order, this case may be dismissed without further notice. The deadline for the parties Rule 26(f) report and the defendant's Motion Requesting Lincoln, Nebraska as the Place of Trial 14 are terminated upon the representation that this case is settled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
|
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 Nebraska 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
| Search for this case: Brown v. Esquire Plaza, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
