Rodriguez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et. al.
| 4:2005cv00546 |
| September 8, 2005 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Federal Employer's Liability |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
235
ORDER denying 216 Motion for New Trial; denying 217 Motion from relief from taxation of costs. Deft is entitled the costs in the amount of $5065.95 as set forth in the amended notice of filing bill of taxable costs. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 04/10/09.(LMF, ) Modified 4/13/2009 to add with opinion (LMF, ).
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER finding evidence regarding Lawrence and Mendez is admissible at trial. (CKJ)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 151 Motion in Limine ; granting in part and denying in part 154 Motion in Limine Re: Employment Evidence Not Related to the Border Patrol; granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion in Limine Re: Marital Status; granting in part and denying in part 156 Motion in Limine Re: Unrelated Acts.. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/22/08.(JKM, )
|
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
| Search for this case: Rodriguez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et. al. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
