Ray Webb v. J. Ackerman et al
| Ray Webb |
| J. Ackerman, A. Cazarez, T. Diaz and H. Moore |
| 2:2013cv09112 |
| December 10, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| Stephen V. Wilson |
| 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
160
JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams, 155 , 128 This action was tried by a jury in Courtroom 780 of the Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Hono rable Paul L. Abrams, United States Magistrate Judge, presiding. Accordingly, IT IS ADJUDGED as follows: 1. As to plaintiff's claim of excessive force against defendants, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the jury rendered a verdict findin g that each of the defendants used excessive force against plaintiff. 2. As to plaintiff's prayer for compensatory damages, the jury rendered a verdict finding that plaintiff shall recover a total of five-hundred thousand dollars ($500,0 00.00) in compensatory damages from defendants for past physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering; and a total of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in compensatory damages from defendants for future physical, mental, and emot ional pain and suffering, for a combined total in compensatory damages from defendants of six-hundred thousand dollars ($600,000.00). 3. As to plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages against defendants, the jury rendered a verdict findi ng that each of the defendants engaged in the conduct with malice, oppression, or reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights, and that plaintiff shall recover five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) from each of the defendants in punitive damages. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gr)
|
|
Filing
87
MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Having reviewed the various pleadings filed in this action, the Court has determined that plaintiff will be afforded 12 HOURS to present his case, and defendants will be afforded 12 HOURS to present their case. The 12-hour time limit per party INCLUDES time spent on direct and cross-examination, as well as opening statements andclosing arguments. The parties' time estimates in their JOINT Witness List should reflect these limits. Th e parties' separate Witness Lists (ECF Nos. 82 , 85 ) are hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply with Court orders. Accordingly, the parties' separate Exhibit Lists (ECF Nos. 83 , 86 ) are hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply with Cour t orders. Because plaintiff has failed to timely file his Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, and all parties have completely failed to comply with the Court's Orders to timely file the joint exhibit and witness lists; original exhibits and exhibit books; joint proposed jury instructions; joint proposed final pretrial order; trial briefs; and joint statement of the case as required by the Court's Orders, NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 10, 2017, each party is ordered to show cause why s anctions should not issue for failure to comply with the Court's Orders. The filingof all of the documents required by the Court's Revised Order, NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 10, 2017, prepared and lodged or filed in a manner fully consistent wit h the Revised Order, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. To be clear, the parties must comply with all of the procedures and formatting requirements set forth in the Court's Revised Order (ECF No. 37 ), including the in-person meet and confer requirement of paragraph 3 of the Revised Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ch)
|
|
Filing
46
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. (es)
|
|
Filing
33
MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. At the trial setting conference on February 10, 2105, plaintiff informed the Court that he expected to retain counsel on or before April 1, 2015. The Court instructed plaintiff that if he did not retain counsel by that date, he was required to so notify the Court. As of this date, no counsel on behalf of plaintiff has filed a notice of appearance with the Court, nor has plaintiff notified the Court that he has not retained counsel. Accordingly, NO LATER THAN APRIL 17, 2015, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to follow Court orders. (ch)
|
|
Filing
7
MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Plaintiff is once again ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as to defendants J. Ackerman, A. Cazarez and T. Diaz for failure to prosecute and follow court orders. Failu re to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to those three defendants. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to defendant Moore. The Court will cons ider the filing of an Answer by defendant Moore, or plaintiff's request for entry of default as to that defendant, as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause as to defendant Moore. Failure to respond will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to defendant Moore. Plaintiff's response to this Order to Show Cause is due NO LATER THAN MAY 12, 2014. **See Order for details.** (ch)
|
|
Filing
6
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Pursuant to this Courts Order of December 13, 2013, plaintiff was ordered to file two copies of the Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint in this matter showing compliance with th e Courts Order within sixty days of the filing of the Complaint, i.e., by February 11, 2014. On February 12, 2014, a Proof of Service regarding defendant Officer H. Moore was filed with the Court. Accordingly, no later than February 21, 2014, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendants for failure to prosecute and follow court orders. Filing of the two copies of the Proof of Service on or before February 21, 2014, showing service on the remaining defendants, or plaintiffs request to dismiss the remaining defendants, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. (es)
|
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.
