Carol-Lee Zuvich et al v. City of Los Angeles
| Matthew Dowd, Vikki Hill, Kenneth Simpson, Stacey Young and Carol-Lee Zuvich |
| City of Los Angeles |
| 2:2011cv06832 |
| August 19, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Andrew J. Wistrich |
| 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
136
JUDGMENT that the Court Grants defendants Motion for Summary Judgmentas to all of Plaintiffs claims set forth in their Complaint by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.Related to: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 135 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 71 City of Los Angeles Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims. (lc). Modified on 9/14/2012 (lc).
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION 87 : The court DENIES Plaintiffs request to strike Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs request to restore to calendar their Motions for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiffs request to continue the hearing on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment to June 4, 2012. In accord with the Magistrate Judges Order, Plaintiffs may also file an expandedopposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed 35 pages by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc)
|
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.
