Terrence Wilson v. City of Long Beach et al
| Terrence Wilson |
| City of Long Beach, Does, Abel Morales, Kristen Nelson, Jacinto Ponce and Jesse Valadez |
| 2:2008cv05194 |
| February 9, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| A. Howard Matz |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
86
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT by Judge A. Howard Matz, in favor of Defendants City of Long Beach, Abel Morales, Jacinto Ponce, Jesse Valadez, Kristen Nelson against Terrence Wilson Related to: Jury Verdict 84 . Plaintiff's Monell claim against the City of Long Beach is Dismissed. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (se) Modified on 2/9/2010 (se)
|
|
Filing
68
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz (see attached Protective Order for further information). The Court retains jurisdiction to modify this Protective Order and to make further Orders with respect to control and use of the information delivered to the attorneys for the parties pursuant to this Order, including Orders as to the ultimate disposition of said copies while the judicial process is pending. (jp)
|
|
Filing
60
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: At the Final Pretrial Conference on 2/7/2009, the Court ordered the parties to lodge a revised pretrial conference order ("PTCO") incorporating the changes ordered at the hearing by not later tha n one week before the rescheduled trial date. TheCourt set a trial date of 1/26/2010, which means that the revised PTCO wouldhave been due by 1/19/2010 at the latest (given the holiday on Monday). The parties have not lodged a revised PTCO. Moreover, Plaintiffs counsel has made no effort to seek to use the sometimes-available procedures to enable her client to be present and to testify. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by 1/22/2010 at 4:00 p.m. why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (jp)
|
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.
