Ford et al v. Strange et al
||Barbara Howard, Dyann Robinson, Louis Maxwell, Willie Patterson, Theodore Samuel and Johnny Ford
||Luther Strange and Robert Bentley
||April 4, 2013
||Alabama Middle District Court
||William Keith Watkins
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Voting
|Cause of Action:
||42:1973(c) Voting Rights -Qualifications & Procedures
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|December 23, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. # 22 , 25 , 26 ) are GRANTED on grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing or, alternatively, that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be gran ted; further ORDERED that Defendant Attorney General Strange's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 33 ) is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2); Defendant Attorney General Strange is DIRECTED to submit an application for reason able attorney's fees and other expenses associated with filing his motion dismiss and motion for sanctions, on or before January 31, 2014; Jurisdiction is RETAINED for purposes of assessing Rule 11(b)(2) sanctions against Mr. LaRoche. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/23/13. (scn, )
|December 23, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 39 ) is DENIED, as further set out. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/23/13. (scn, ) (Main Document 47 replaced on 12/23/2013 to attach correct order) (scn, ).
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.