Robert Garber v. Mohammadi et al
| Robert Garber |
| Mohammadi, Standage, Jane Doe, Does, Los Angeles Police Department and City of Los Angeles |
| 2:2010cv07144 |
| September 24, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Robert N. Block |
| 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
152
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS AT THE GOVERNMENTS EXPENSE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court orders that one copy of the trial transcript be provided to Mr. Garber at government expense, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). (lc). Modified on 11/19/2014. (lc).
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF CASE : This Order explains the courts decision to grant Defendant Mohammadis Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 8/12/2014. (lc).
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER RE PROCEDURE FOR FILING APPEAL by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Plaintiff is advised that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(1)(a), he must file any appeal of the judgment entered with respect to his excessive force claim within 30 days after the entry of judgment. Federal Rule of Appeal Procedure 3, "Appeal as of Right," sets forth the procedure for pursuing an appeal as follows: (a) Filing the Notice of Appeal. (1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district c ourt to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4. At the time of filing, the appellant must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to enable the clerk to c omply with rule 3(d) (2) An appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not effect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the court of appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal. (See document for further details) (bp)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER RE: AMENDED STATEMENT OF THE CASE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 7/25/2014 (lc).
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER RE STATEMENT OF THE CASE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 7/16/2014 (lc).
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS 76 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court Denies the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Mohammadi. The court GRANTS the Mo tion to Dismiss with prejudice with respect to all of plaintiffs other claims against all defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Request for Ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss 93 and Plaintiffs Request for the Second Time for Ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss 94 is hereby VACATED as moot. (lc). Modified on 8/6/2013 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 76 AND VACATING MOTION OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING 76 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ). (lc). Modified on 1/29/2013 (lc).
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 65 , 69 , 70 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc) Modified on 6/22/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 24 . IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) plaintiffs resubmitted "Motion to Strike Defendants' 'Answer' and for Judgment on the Pleadings" is denied; and (2) defendants' request for sanctions is denied. (rla)
|
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.
