Herrera et al v. California Highway Patrol
Plaintiff: Pete Herrera and Lupe Herrera
Defendant: California Highway Patrol
Case Number: 1:2015cv01882
Filed: December 17, 2015
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Fresno Office
County: Madera
Presiding Judge: Troy L. Nunley
Presiding Judge: Sandra M. Snyder
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/9/2017 DENYING 26 Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. In light of this order, and in conjunction with the Court's prior order granting CHP's motion to dismiss 25 , this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED(Washington, S)
February 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/13/2017 ORDERING that Defendant's 13 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' informal request for leave to amend is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file a formal motion for leave to amend within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiffs do not timely file their motion, the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further action by the Court. (Zignago, K.)
March 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 16 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/29/16 ORDERING that the deadline for the parties to confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and to prepare and submit to the Court a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan shall be 30 days after the Court rules on the CHP's pending motion to dismiss the operative first amended complaint or, alternatively, to stay this case, Dkt. Nos. 13 and 14 .(Kastilahn, A)
February 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 12 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/23/2016 AMENDING the operative First Amended Complaint; ORDERING that the first cause of action for declaratory relief be removed from the complaint; ORDERING that the complaint's second cause of action for violation of civil rights remain in the case. (Michel, G.)
January 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 10 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/26/16 ORDERING that the date for CHP to respond to complaint is EXTENDED to 02/29/16. (Benson, A)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Herrera et al v. California Highway Patrol
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pete Herrera
Represented By: Steven A. Geringer
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 ]
Plaintiff: Lupe Herrera
Represented By: Steven A. Geringer
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: California Highway Patrol
Represented By: John William Killeen
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?