Mimiele Goulatte et al v. County of Riverside et al
| Bonnie Rhea-Scott and Mimiele Goulatte |
| Jerry Wengerd, Bill Van deR Poorten, Carrie Harmon, Carmelo Isales, Lourdes Kirkpatrick, Maria Marquez, Heidi Marshall, Kristin Miller, Linda Rabor, Frank Ramos, Linda Ramos, Riverside County Public Housing Authority, Lynne Brockmeier, County of Riverside and Donna Dahl |
| 2:2011cv01740 |
| February 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Jacqueline Chooljian |
| 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
103
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 98 defendants Motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed. Defendants request for sanctions is vacated as moot.(Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc) Modified on 10/5/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY DATES 85 , 93 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: To the extent that Plaintiffs seek an extension of the trial date, discovery cut-off date, and other dates set forth by the court at the June 7, 2012 hearing, the Application is granted as follows: all dates shall be continued for sixty (60) days. However, this Order does not affect the Magistrate Judges August 2, 2012 Order on Defendants Motions to Compel and other discovery-rel ated matters. Specifically, this Order does not excuse Plaintiffs from complying with the outstanding discovery requests, discovery due dates, and other requirements set forth by the Magistrate Judge in her Order. Again, Plaintiffs must comply fully with all discovery due dates and the Magistrate Judges Order. (lc). Modified on 8/30/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
60
PROTECTIVE ORDER [CHANGES MADE BY COURT] by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian re Stipulation for Protective Order 59 . See order for details. (hr)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 36 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication. The court therefore GRANTS summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs' second, third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief, for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, and defamation. Accordingly, the only claim for relief remaining is Plaintiffs' first claim, for First Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (lom)
|
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.
