Whitfield v. Tri-Metropolitan Transportation District et al
3:2006cv01655 |
November 16, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Oregon |
Portland Office |
Donald C. Ashmanskas |
Civil Rights: Other |
29 U.S.C. ยง 0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap) |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 121 OPINION AND ORDER defendant TriMet's Motion for Summary Judgment 73 is granted, and TriMet is dismissed as a defendant from this action. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment brought by defendant City 56 is also granted. Plaintiff 's Motion to Supplement 117 is denied as moot. Trial in this matter, as well as a Pretrial Conference, needs to be scheduled. Counsel for plaintiff and the City are ordered to confer and then file a written Joint Status Report indicating pro posed dates that are acceptable for the trial. Counsel shall estimate the length of trial, indicate any expected motions in limine or issues for trial, and address whether it would be appropriate to enlist the services of a settlement judge. This Joint Status Report must be filed no later than April 24, 2009. Signed on 3/30/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (jlr) |
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 Oregon 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: Whitfield v. Tri-Metropolitan Transportation District et al | |
---|---|
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.