Mendenhall et al v. Blackmun et al
Plaintiff: |
Linda Mendenhall, Stanford Mendenhall and Amazing Grace Bed & Breakfast |
Defendant: |
Henrietta Blackmun, Andrew Cromer, City of Camden, AL, City of Camden Zoning Board and City of Camden Adjustment Board |
Case Number: |
2:2009cv00298 |
Filed: |
May 29, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama |
Office: |
Selma Office |
County: |
Wilcox |
Presiding Judge: |
Katherine P. Nelson |
Presiding Judge: |
William H. Steele |
Nature of Suit: |
None |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Jury Demanded By: |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
February 25, 2011 |
Filing
117
FINAL JUDGMENT stating this action is dismissed with prejudice as to all claims other than the state-law aspects of the declaratory judgment claim in Count Five of the amended complaint, which is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7; 1367(c)(3). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, judgment in favor of Andrew Cromer, Henrietta Blackmun against Amazing Grace Bed & Breakfast, Linda Mendenhall, Stanford Mendenhall on all claims. JUDGMENT in favor of City of Camden Zoni ng Board, City of Camden, AL against Amazing Grace Bed & Breakfast, Linda Mendenhall, Stanford Mendenhall on all claims except the state-law aspects of the declaratory judgment claim in Count Five of the amended complaint. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 2/25/2011. Copies to parties. (mpp)
|
February 11, 2011 |
Filing
114
ORDER denying 112 Motion for Reconsideration of District Judge Order. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 2/11/2011. copies to parties. (sdb)
|
January 12, 2011 |
Filing
110
Order granting in part denying in part the defendants' 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to Cts. 1-3 & the counts are dismissed. Because these are the only counts as to which they are defendants, Blackmon and Cromer are dismissed. The motion is granted as to Ct. 5 to the extent the claim is based on discrimination due to race or interracial marriage. As to the balance of Ct. 5, the defendants are ordered by 1/28/2011 to file a brief as set out. Plaintiffs' Response is due by 2/14/2011. The 108 MOTION to Strike is granted in part denied in part. The final pretrial conference is reset for April 19, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Trial is reset from February to May. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 1/12/11. Copy mailed to plaintiffs. (tgw)
|
August 18, 2010 |
Filing
71
ORDER granting 70 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 8/18/10. Copies to parties. (mpp)
|
February 23, 2010 |
Filing
50
ORDER re: the 39 Motion to Dismiss. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Count Four and is in all other respects DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 2/23/10. Copy mailed to Plaintiffs. (tgw)
|
January 27, 2010 |
Filing
44
ORDER denying 26 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 1/27/10. Copy mailed to plaintiffs. (tgw)
|
November 30, 2009 |
Filing
27
Order granting in part denying in part the 8 MOTION to Dismiss. The claims under Section 3604 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are DISMISSED. In all other respects, the motion is denied. The moti on for definite statement (Doc. 9) is granted & the plaintiffs are ordered by 12/14/2009 to file an amended complaint. The 25 MOTION to Supplement or Clarify is granted. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 11/30/09. Copy mailed to plaintiffs. (tgw)
|
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 Southern 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.
Why Is My Information Online?