Tohono O'odham Nation v. Glendale, City of et al
Plaintiff: Tohono O'odham Nation
Defendant: Glendale, City of and Arizona, State of
Case Number: 2:2011cv00279
Filed: February 10, 2011
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
June 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff on the preemption claim asserted in count one, and i n favor of Defendants on counts two through six. The Court declares that H.B. 2534, as applied in this case, is preempted by the Gila Bend Act, Pub. L. No. 99-503, 100 Stat. 1798 (Oct. 20, 1986). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/30/11.(DMT)
March 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER - The motion to transfer related case (Doc. 119, CV-10-1993) is granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer Case No. CV-11-279-PHX-NVW to the undersigned Judge. The joint motion to increase page limits (Doc. 20, CV-11 279) is granted. The consen t motion for the entry of a scheduling order (Doc. 22, CV 11-279) is granted. The following schedule will govern briefing of motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 and dismissal under Rule 12: The Nation's summary judgment motion was filed o n March 18, 2011. Defendants' combined oppositions and cross-motions for summary judgment, including any arguments for dismissal under Rule 12, are due by April 18, 2011. The Nation's combined reply and opposition is due by May 9, 2011. Defendants' replies are due by May 24, 2011. Oral argument is set for June 3, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/23/11. (KMG)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Tohono O'odham Nation v. Glendale, City of et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tohono O'odham Nation
Represented By: Jonathan Landis Jantzen
Represented By: Brian H Fletcher
Represented By: Samuel Franklin Daughety
Represented By: Shiva Nagaraj
Represented By: Danielle Spinelli
Represented By: Seth P Waxman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Glendale, City of
Represented By: Peter T Limperis
Represented By: Audrey E Moog
Represented By: Dominic F Perella
Represented By: Jose de Jesus Rivera
Represented By: Craig Douglas Tindall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Arizona, State of
Represented By: G Michael Tryon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?