Price v. Dewey-Humboldt, Town of et al
| Dennis Price |
| Dewey-Humboldt, Town of, David M Hiles, Unknown Hiles, Mark McBrady and Unknown McBrady |
| 3:2012cv08086 |
| May 3, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prescott Division Office |
| Yavapai |
| Frederick J Martone |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
20
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. It is ordered granting amendments to Counts 3 and 4, and denying amendments to and dismissing Counts 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The claims remaining in this action are Counts 1, 3, and 4. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/19/12.(TLJ)
|
|
Filing
8
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART defendants' partial motion to dismiss (doc. 3). IT IS ORDERED DISMISSING Count III (§ 1983 free speech) as to Hiles and McBrady, and DISMISSING Counts V (intentional infliction of emotional distress), VI (false light), VII (negligent infliction of emotional distress) and VIII (breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing) in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to dismiss Count III (free speech-Arizona Constitution). The following claims remain in this case: Counts I, II, III (asserted against Town only), and Count IV. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/26/12.(LAD)
|
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.
