Jayantibhai Patel et al v. City of Long Beach et al
| Jayantibhai Patel, Pravin L Patel, Dipak L Patel and Daksha Patel |
| City of Long Beach and DOES |
| 2:2008cv02806 |
| April 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Audrey B. Collins |
| Ralph Zarefsky |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| 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
209
FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 206 , the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs Jayantibhai Patel dba Princess Inn and Daksha Patel and against Defendant City of L ong Beach. Defendant City of Long Beach shall pay Plaintiffs Jayantibhai Patel dba Princess Inn and Daksha Patel the total sum of $7,500 as damages for the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights to be paid within 45 days of Entry of Judgment . Plaintiffs are deemed the prevailing party for the purposes of determination of the award for reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs available under 42 U.S.C. section 1988. Notwithstanding the designation as "prevailing party,&qu ot; the date of recovery of Plaintiffs attorney's fees or costs in this case is cut-off as of 1/30/2017. After 1/30/2017, the parties shall bear their own attorney's fees and costs. Any motion to determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs, including any motion to determine attorney's fees for the Plaintiffs' previous appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Docket No. 09-56699, shall be served and filed no later than 90 days after Entry of Judgment. See document for further details. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
|
Filing
141
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. Based on the representations made in City's Status Report 134 regarding Plaintiffs' failure to engage in meaningful s ettlement efforts, and based on Plaintiffs' failure to file pretrial documents due June 30, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than Friday July 14, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff s' failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with Court-ordered deadlines. If Plaintiffs fail to respond to the OSC by the deadline the entire case will be dismissed, without further notice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey court orders. (iv)
|
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 California Central 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.
