Tara McMahon v. Luis Valenzuela et al
Plaintiff: Tara McMahon
Defendant: James Nichols, The City of Los Angeles and Luis Valenzuela
Case Number: 2:2014cv02085
Filed: March 19, 2014
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Alicia G. Rosenberg
Presiding Judge: Christina A. Snyder
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 13, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 204 ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE CASE by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The parties having so stipulated 203 , it is hereby ordered, decreed and adjudged that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. (gk)
November 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 180 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' motion to trifurcate 102 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the trial will be bifurcated into two phases, the first of which will cover the t imeliness of plaintiffs claim, the applicability of equitable estoppel and tolling, liability, and damages, while the second phase, if necessary, will cover the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 1 108 i s GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 2 104 is DENIED without prejudice, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding what specific evidence of plaintiff's sexual history or predisposition defendants intend to offer at t rial. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 3 105 is DENIED without prejudice, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding what specific evidence of plaintiff's medical records and the statements contained therein defendants inten d to offer at trial. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 4 106 is DENIED with respect to the question of damages, but is otherwise GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 5 107 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 6 109 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' motion in limine No. 1 90 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine No. 2 91 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion in limine No. 3 92 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion i n limine No. 4 93 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' motion in limine No. 5 94 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine No. 6 95 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' motion in limine No. 7 96 is DENIED without prejudi ce. Defendants' motion in limine No. 8 97 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine No. 9 98 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine No. 10 99 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' motion in limine No. 11 100 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine No. 12 101 is GRANTED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
September 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 84 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: There remain many triable issues of fact regarding the alleged actions of Officer Valenzuela, Officer Nichols, and City personnel in the years following the sexual assault. There is a reasonable pro bability that a jury, having resolved these genuine disputes over material facts, could conclude that equitable estoppel or equitable tolling apply such that plaintiffs ten claims are not time barred. Therefore, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 44 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
August 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg re Stipulation for Protective Order 25 . SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. ***** NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. ***** (mp)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Tara McMahon v. Luis Valenzuela et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tara McMahon
Represented By: Caleb E Mason
Represented By: Daniel Stephen Miller
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: James Nichols
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The City of Los Angeles
Represented By: Geoffrey R Plowden
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Luis Valenzuela
Represented By: Thomas C Hurrell
Represented By: Charles Phan
Represented By: Jill Andrea Wood
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?