Yazzie v. Mohave, County of et al

Plaintiff: Vina Yazzie
Defendant: Mohave, County of, Steve Latoski, Ramon Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge and Warren Twitchel
Case Number: 3:2014cv08153
Filed: August 20, 2014
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Prescott Division Office
County: Mohave
Presiding Judge: James A Teilborg
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
July 19, 2016 97 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 7-11 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 83 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all counts of the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 4 ), see also (Docs. 74 , 82 ), and shall terminate this case. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/19/2016.(KMG)
December 21, 2015 82 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 26 ), which was converted to a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 68 ) is granted as to Count 1-6 (which were still under advisement following the Order at Doc. 74 ). Because various counts remain in this case, the Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment at this time. See order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 12/21/15. (NKS)
November 25, 2015 74 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - ORDERED granting in part 26 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as follows: Counts 10 and 11 against Defendant Mohave County are dismissed (The Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment). The Motion is denied to the ex tent it seeks judgment on Counts 1-6 for failure to state a claim. The Motion remains under advisement regarding whether Plaintiff exhausted her disability discrimination claims with the EEOC (thus whetherCounts 1-6 will be dismissed on this basis re mains under advisement). Because Counts 7-9 were not the subject of the Motion of Judgment on the Pleadings, they are not dismissed. Counts 10 and 11 against Defendants Steve Latoski, Ramon Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge, and Warren Twitchel are also not d ismissed. FURTHER ORDERED denying 43 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Pleading. FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants shall reply to Plaintiff's Rule 56 response by 12/14/2015. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/25/15.(TLB)
November 6, 2015 71 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's supplemental response filed at Doc. 70 is stricken. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a supplemental response that fully complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule Civil 56.1 by Tuesday , November 10, 2015. If Plaintiff fails to file a complying response within this deadline, the Court will deem all of Plaintiff's procedural objections to this Court considering the pending motion as one for judgment on the pleadings to be waived. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/6/2015. (KMG)
October 15, 2015 62 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying as moot 50 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery. FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i), if Plaintiff VinaYazzie fails to timely respond to the pending motions to withdraw, this Court will deemP laintiff's failure to respond as consent to the Court granting the motions. FURTHER ORDERED granting 58 Mr. Coronado's Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically. Mr. Coronado shall call into chambers at 602-322-7560 at the time set fo r the hearing. FURTHER ORDERED granting 61 Defendants' Motion for Expedited Ruling. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coronado shall send a copy of this Order to his client. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/15/2015.(TLB)

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: Yazzie v. Mohave, County 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: Vina Yazzie
Represented By: Isaac Pasaret Hernandez(Designation Retained)
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: Mohave, County 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: Steve Latoski
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: Ramon Osuna
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: Kevin Stockbridge
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: Warren Twitchel
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?