Edward Rezek v. City of Tustin et al
| Edward Rezek |
| Brian Chupp No 1069, City of Tustin, Does, IPC International Corporation, Scott Jordan, Jose Reyes, Mark Turner No 1002 and Vestar Property Management Company |
| 8:2011cv01601 |
| October 17, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Robert N. Block |
| David O. Carter |
| 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
224
JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter, in favor of City of Tustin, IPC International Corporation, Vestar Property Management Company, Brian Chupp No 1069, Jose Reyes, Mark Turner No 1002, Scott Jordan against Plaintiff Edward Rezek. Related to: Notice of Lodging 223 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (twdb)
|
|
Filing
66
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: Granting In Part and Denying In Part City of Tustin's MOTION to Dismiss 44 . (twdb)
|
|
Filing
61
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: granting in part and denying in part 44 City of Tustin's Motion to Dismiss. (twdb)
|
|
Filing
36
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Dismiss Case ; granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Dismiss Case ; denying 25 Motion to Strike ; denying 26 Motion to Strike. The Court also ORDERS this case STAYED pending resolution of the underlying criminal case, Orange County Superior Court case No. 10CM00225. See minute order for more information. MD JS-6. (twdb) Modified on 11/16/2012 (twdb).
|
|
Filing
32
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge David O. Carter: SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED OR DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION: (See document for details.) Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in a brief of no more t han 2 pages filed no later than 5:00 PM on SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as to the City of Tustin, Brian Chupp, Mark Turner, and Scott Jordan (City Defendants) for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written resp onse by Plaintiff, the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: The City Defendants; Answer to the First Amended Complaint; or Plaintiff's Req uest for Entry of Default against the City Defendants. In addition, the Court ORDERS all Defendants to show cause in a brief of no more than 2 pages filed no later than 5:00 PM on SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, why this entire case should not be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff in Superior Court, Orange, Case No. 10CM00225. In addition, City Defendants' briefs should explain why they have failed to file an answer for almost an entire year. (rla)
|
|
Filing
16
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge David O. Carter WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION: Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than APRIL 20, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as to all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is bein g prosecuted diligently. Defendants answer to complaint or Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Default No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all parties who have not yet appeared in this action. (rla)
|
|
Filing
9
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge David O. Carter, Why this case should not be dismissed for Lack of Prosecution: (See document for details.) Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/14/2012. (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.
