Caronda Graham et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
| Caronda Graham, Shar'Rhonda Davis and Deborah Jeffery |
| Does, Deputy Griffith, Deputy Austin, County of Los Angeles, Deputy Grimes and Deputy Raniag |
| 2:2010cv05059 |
| July 9, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
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
93
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting in part 73 defendants Motion for Attorney Fees.Defendants shall recover from Plaintiffs and their counsel fees in the amount of $775.00. (lc). Modified on 10/30/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
68
JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of defendants, the County of Los Angeles, Deputy Nathan Grimes, Deputy John Griffith, Deputy Kristoffer Raniag and Deputy Maurice Austin, and against plaintiffs, Caronda Graham, Shar'Rhonda Davis and Deborah Jeffrey. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 48 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 22 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons stated above, Defendants Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Deborah Jefferey, is DENIED. (See Order for Details). (sch)
|
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.
