Arizona, State of et al v. Cottonwood, City of et al

Plaintiff: Arizona, State of and Arizona Department of Law
Defendant: Cottonwood, City of and Cottonwood Police Department
Intervenor_plaintiff: Monica Kuhlt
Case Number: 2:2011cv01576
Filed: August 10, 2011
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441
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
July 20, 2012 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. a) Plaintiffs' retaliation claims (Count III and Count V) survive only to the extent that they claim that CPD retal iated against Det. Kuhlt for writing her March 9, 2009 letter asking CRD to re-open her case by sending her to a doctor for a medical evaluation andsubsequently putting her on modified duty. b) Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Coun t IV) is dismissed. c) All other claims survive.Defendants are hereby enjoined from requiring officers seeking promotionwithin the Cottonwood Police Department from passing a physical fitness exam as a prerequisite to promotion unless the exam in question has been validated as job-related specifically to the job for which the applicant is applying. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/20/12.(LAD)
June 1, 2012 40 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 36 Defendants' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Roger Millsap. Defendants shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to submit any evidence rebutting Dr. Millsap's conclusion or otherwise suggesting that the FIT standards do not have a disparate impact on female test-takers. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/1/12.(LSP)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Arizona, State of et al v. Cottonwood, City of et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Intervenor_plaintiff: Monica Kuhlt
Represented By: David Paul Gordon
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cottonwood, City of
Represented By: Stephen Barry Coleman
Represented By: Richard Seth Cohen
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cottonwood Police Department
Represented By: Richard Seth Cohen
Represented By: Stephen Barry Coleman
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Arizona, State of
Represented By: Ann Ruth Hobart
Represented By: Jennifer M Larson
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Arizona Department of Law
Represented By: Ann Ruth Hobart
Represented By: Jennifer M Larson
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 [ 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?