Neal et al v. Arizona, State of et al

Case Number: 3:2009cv08203
Filed: November 9, 2009
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Contract: Other Office
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
January 14, 2010 73 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER this action is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 28 Defendant Thomas Sheahan's Motion to Dismiss Case; denying 37 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 48 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default; granting to the extent it is premissed upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction 50 Defendants State of Arizona, Roger Vanderpool, Gale Garriott and Stacy K Stanton's Motion to Dismiss Case; denying as moot 58 Defenda nt Robert Devries' Amended Motion for Extension of Time; granting 63 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, the Clerk shall file 64 and 65 Lodged Documents; granting 67 Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite; and granting to the extent it is premised upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction 66 Defendant Robert Devries' Motion to Dismiss Case. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/13/10.(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: Neal et al v. Arizona, State of et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?