Elgamal v. Bernacke et al
| Ashraf Elgamal |
| Rebecca Bernacke, Cynthia Harper, MA Jiminez and Unknown Parties |
| 2:2013cv00867 |
| April 29, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| G Murray Snow |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 Tort Claim |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
391
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 332 ), is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 347 ), is DENIED. There being no remaining parties or claims, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of all Defendants and against all Plaintiffs on all claims, and to terminate this case. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/25/16. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
389
ORDER granting Bernacke's 313 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Bernacke's 364 Motion to Strike; granting Harper's 327 Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying Plaintiffs' 334 and 342 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (See attached Order for details.) Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/14/2016. (MMO)
|
|
Filing
78
CONSOLIDATION ORDER (Re 2:13-cv-00867-GMS-LOA, 2:14-cv-00040-LOA) ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Complaint, doc. 1, in CV-14-040-PHX-LOA is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc, to January 9, 2014, and unsealing this action (Elgamal II), except the Complaint itself, doc. 2, shall remain SEALED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Consolidation and Transfer, sealed (doc. 74 lodged), 77 filed is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to consolidate the following two cas es: Elgamal v. Johnson, CV-13-867-PHX-GMS (LOA) (Elgamal I) and Elgamal v. United States of America, CV-14-040-PHX-LOA (Elgamal II). These cases shall be consolidated into the lead case under Case No. CV-13-867-PHX-GMS (LOA). The parties are hereby d irected to utilize only the lead case number and its caption with the addition of United States of America as a defendant on all future filings until further order of the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second A mended Complaint, (doc. 65 lodged), 76 filed, is conditionally GRANTED, provided Plaintiffs comply with this Order. The Second Amended Complaint, however, must not be the same one lodged under seal on January 9, 2014, doc. 66 , but rather, it mu st include all causes of action Plaintiffs elect to allege in Elgamal I and II, without any mention of the Lilly Memorandum, as if it had not inadvertently been disclosed in the Mata case. The Second Amended Complaint must be initially lodged, not fi led as a public document, within 10 days of the entry of this Order and promptly served on Defendants. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are conditionally granted leave to file a different amended complaint than the one lodged on January 9, 2014 in El gamal I as explained herein. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Stay of Case Proceedings and Motion to Keep Case Filings Under Seal Pending Resolution of Discovery Dispute, doc. 69 , are DENIED. All documents filed under seal before the date of this Order shall remain sealed until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 1/30/14. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 1/30/14. (MAP)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
