Arizona, State of v. International Boundary and Water Commission et al

Plaintiff: Arizona, State of
Defendant: International Boundary and Water Commission and Edward Drusina
Thirdparty_defendant: Nogales, City of
Thirdparty_plaintiff: Edward Drusina and International Boundary and Water Commission
Case Number: 4:2012cv00644
Filed: June 22, 2012
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Frank R Zapata
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1442
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 20, 2017 202 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 198 . The City of Nogales' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Count II of Third Party Plaintiff USIBWC's Third Party Claim (Doc. 166) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of the City of Nogales on Claims 1 and 2 of the Third-Party Complaint and dismiss the Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 5) with prejudice. USIBWC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability on Count 9 of the State's Amended Complaint (Doc. 1 68) is GRANTED. Plaintiff State's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Count 9 (Doc. 170) is GRANTED. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for pretrial proceedings for purposes of conducting a status conference to determine w hether the parties seek to pursue a resolution regarding the injunctive relief and civil penalties sought in the First Amendment Complaint and any award of attorney's fees and costs. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/20/17. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)
March 23, 2016 127 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 102 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Motion of the City of Nogales for Summary Judgment on Third Party Claim(Doc. 76 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The City of Nogales is entitled to summary judgment on the First Claim for Relief alleged in the Third-Party Complaint. The summary judgment is DENIED as to the Second Claim for Relief of the Third-Party Complaint. This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for pretrial proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 3/22/2016. (See attached PDF for complete information)(DLC)
September 30, 2015 85 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 68 . Plaintiff State of Arizona's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: Liability for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Doc. 45 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED summary judgment as a matter of law as to Count Five of the First Amended Complaint and that summary judgment is DENIED as to Counts Eight and Nine based on the finding of a genuine issue of material fact. It is further ORDERED that Counts Tw o, Six and Seven are DISMISSED as moot and that this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. All filings shall be designated: CV 12-644-TUC-FRZ(DTF). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/30/15. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)

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: Arizona, State of v. International Boundary and Water Commission et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Arizona, State of
Represented By: Curtis Andrew Cox
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: International Boundary and Water Commission
Represented By: John S Leonardo
Represented By: Norman Louis Rave, Jr
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: Edward Drusina
Represented By: John S Leonardo
Represented By: Norman Louis Rave, Jr
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 ]
Thirdparty_defendant: Nogales, City of
Represented By: Eugene N Goldsmith
Represented By: Joe Luis Machado
Represented By: Brian Marchetti
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 ]
Thirdparty_plaintiff: Edward Drusina
Represented By: John S Leonardo
Represented By: Norman Louis Rave, Jr
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 ]
Thirdparty_plaintiff: International Boundary and Water Commission
Represented By: John S Leonardo
Represented By: Norman Louis Rave, Jr
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?