Jackson v. Board of Equalization
| Alicia B. Jackson |
| Board of Equalization |
| 2:2009cv01387 |
| May 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Frank C. Damrell |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| None |
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
62
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2013 RECOMMENDING that Defendant's 57 motion for summary judgment be granted. This action be dismissed. Motion referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/2011 SETTING Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference for 12/16/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Plaintiff's Status Report due by 12/2/2011. Defendant's Status Report due 12/12/2011. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/28/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/26/11 38 are ADOPTED in full; Defendant's 11/19/10 MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff's second Amended Complaint 33 is DENIED as to Plaintif fs claim that defendant discriminated against her by failing to hire her for the open BOE Office Technician positions in July of 2007 and September of 2007, and Plaintiff's claim that defendant retaliated against her for filing a discrimination complaint by failing to hire her for the open BOE Office Technician positions in July of 2007 and September of 2007, but is GRANTED in all other respects. Defendant's 11/19/10 MOTION to STRIKE and MOTION for more definite statement 33 are DENIED; This action will proceed on the claims specified in this order.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
38
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 8/26/11 RECOMMENDING that: the 33 Amended Motion to Dismiss be denied as to plaintiff's claim that defendant discriminated against her by failing to hire plaintiff for the op en BOE Office Technician positions in July and September 2007; the 33 Amended Motion to Dismiss be denied with respect to plaintiff's claim that defendant retaliated against her; the 33 Amended Motion to Dismiss be granted in all other respe ct; the 33 Motion to strike be denied; and the 33 motion for a more definite statement be denied. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Motion referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/19/10, ORDERING that dft's motion to dismiss 17 is GRANTED. Dft's motions to strike and for a more definite statement 17 are DENIED AS MOOT. Pltf's first amended complaint 14 is DISMISSED; and pltf is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint. If BOE is named as a dft in any second amended complaint pltf elects to file, dft shall respond to the pleading within 30 days after it is filed and served.(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/9/2009 ORDERING 13 Defendant's 8 motions to dismiss, to strike, and for more definite statement are GRANTED; Pltf's 12 motion for leave of court to amend her complaint is GRANTED; P ltf's amended complaint shall be filed with the court within one week after 10/9/2009, and shall include a certificate of service reflecting the date on which the amended complaint was served on dft's counsel; Dft's response to pltf� 39;s amended complaint shall be filed with the court and served on pltf by mail within 20 days from the date the amended complaint is filed or served, whichever is later; and if dft's response to the amended complaint is an answer, a Status (Pre trial Scheduling) Conf will be set by the court; if dft's response is a motion, the motion will be heard in accordance with dft's notice of motion; pltf shall file and serve her written opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion in compliance with LR 78-230(c), and dft shall file and serve any reply in accordance with LR 78-230(d). (Reader, L)
|
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 Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Jackson v. Board of Equalization | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Alicia B. Jackson | |
| 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: Board of Equalization | |
| 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.
