Reeves v. Show Low, City of et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 4, 2010
ORDER pursuant to 77 Stipulation: The remaining parties having filed a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice (doc. #77) which is sufficient to automatically effectuate the dismissal of the remainder of this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) without the necessity of a court order, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 and n.4 (9th Cir. 1986),IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/4/10. (LAD)
|April 27, 2009
ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss as follows: (1) all federal claims alleged in the Complaint against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Public Safety are dismissed with prejudice; (2) all state law claims alleged in the Complaint against the State of Arizona are dismissed without prejudice; (3) all state law claims alleged in the Complaint against the Arizona Department of Public Safety are dismissed with prejudice; and (4) all state law claims alleged in the Complaint again st defendant Sergeant Brian Swanty are dismissed with prejudice; all claims alleged in the Complaint against defendant Spouse Swanty and defendant Spouse Fellows are dismissed without prejudice; the remaining parties shall file an Amended Joint Case Management Report by 5/26/09; the Scheduling Conference shall be held on 6/8/09 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 601.. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 4/27/09.(REW, )
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
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?