Hill v. Phoenix, City of et al

Plaintiff: Stacia C Hill
Defendant: Phoenix, City of and Phoenix Police Department
Case Number: 2:2013cv02315
Filed: November 13, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 29:626
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
September 6, 2016 182 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 177 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/6/2016.(DGC, nvo)
June 27, 2016 135 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 102 Motion in Limine; denying 103 Motion in Limine; denying 104 Motion in Limine; denying 105 Motion in Limine; denying 106 Motion in Limine; denying 107 Motion in Limine; denying 108 Motion in Limine; granting in p art and denying in part 109 Motion in Limine; denying 110 Motion in Limine; denying 111 Motion in Limine; granting 112 Motion in Limine; denying 113 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion in Limine; denyin g 115 Motion in Limine; denying 116 Motion in Limine. Trial will begin 7/15/2016 at 9:00 a.m. and continue on 7/18, 7/19, 7/20, 7/21, 7/22. The parties and counsel shall be in the courtroom and ready to proceed no later than 8:30 a.m. on 7/15/2016. Final conference set for 7/13/2016 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/27/2016.(DGC, nvo)
June 24, 2016 133 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re: 93 Memorandum filed by Phoenix Police Department, Phoenix, City of, 94 Memorandum filed by Stacia C Hill. Order re clarification of 83 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/24/2016. (DGC, nvo)
May 11, 2016 92 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 90 Motion for clarification. On or before 5/17/16 the parties shall file a memorandum (not to exceed 8 pages) on the issues in this order. On or before 5/24/16 the parties shall file a reply (not to exceed 5 pages) on the issues in this order. The Court will not grant extension to these deadlines absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/11/2016.(DGC, nvo)
February 8, 2016 83 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re: 82 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel shall disregard the order entered at 82 . The attached order is ruling on the motions for summary judgment 67 , 69 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/8/2016. (DGC, nvo)
October 6, 2014 31 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/8/2014.(DGC, nvo)

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: Hill v. Phoenix, 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 ]
Plaintiff: Stacia C Hill
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: Phoenix, City of
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: Phoenix Police Department
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?