Clark v. Hann et al
| Peter J.D. Clark, Sr. |
| Hann, Rick Brazeil, Sacramento Police Department, Nancy Aiken, Dennis Jones, Jorge Akagi, Tudmila Tschursin, James McFetridge, Jerilyn Borack, Sacramento County, Sacramento County Superior Court, Jeremy Jordan, John McGuinness, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Nora Shigemoto, Kathleen Parks, Ms. Nicole, Ms. Annie, YMCA of Greater Sacramento, YMCA Child Development Center, Roxana Saravia, Jennifer Brekke, Kathy Ertola, Gloria Merck, State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Kevin Huntington, UC Davis Child Psychiatric Care Center and Susan Dubner Ciminelli |
| 2:2009cv01452 |
| May 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
77
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/09/10 RECOMMENDING that dfts Hann and Sacramento County CA Superior Courts be dismissed w/o prejudice; that 44 , 45 , 52 , 53 Motions to Dismiss be granted in part; that the court decline to excercise supplemental jurisdiction over plf's state law claims and that plf's 41 Amended Complaint be dismissed w/o leave to amend and this action be dismissed; Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 14 days; referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/3/2010 ORDERING Plaintiff's 7/27/2010 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 75), construed as a request for partial dismissal is granted and will not be placed on the court's 8/6/2010 calendar; The YMCA defendants, consisting of the YMCA of Greater Sacramento, YMCA Child Development Center, Nora Shigomoto, Kathleen Parks, Nicole Romero, and Annie Cargile are dismissed without prejudice; and the YMCA defendants' 11/5/2009 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 48) is denied as moot. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/19/10 ORDERING that plaintiff's 2/16/10 motion for continuance and for appointment of counsel 71 is DENIED. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/11/2010 ORDERING Plaintiff's 68 motion for reconsideration and for a 60-day extension of time is DENIED. Defendants motions to dismiss 44 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 53 , all noticed for hearing on 2/19/2010 by defendants' amended notices of motion 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , are SUBMITTED upon the record and briefs on file, and the hearing set for 2/19/2010 is VACATED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/2010 DENYING plaintiff's 65 Motion for Indefinite Continuance. He is GRANTED FINAL extension of time until 2/10/2010 to file Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss. Defendants' Replies, if any, shall be filed and served on or before 2/17/2010. Defendants' 44 60 64 Motions to Dismiss Hearing is CONTINUED to 2/19/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD). (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion for Extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/1/09: Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 44, 45, 48, 52 & 53) are dropped from the court's law and motion calendars for December 4, 2009, and December 11, 2009, and are to be re-noticed for hearing in accordance with this order. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/13/09 ORDERING that the MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, in the alternative, to quash service of process brought by defendants Shigomoto, Parks, Cargile, and Romero, originally filed on 9/21/09 and noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge 37 and refiled on 9/22/09 39 is DENIED as moot due to the dismissal of the complaint at issue in the motion. Denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff names any of these individuals as defendants in a First Amended Complaint and the jurisdictional issue is not resolved by Plaintiff's service of the amended pleading. Defendants' MOTION is dropped from the 10/30/09 calendar. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/24/09 ORDERING that motion to dismiss 8 brought on behalf of dft Sac Police Dept is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss 13 brought on behalf of the Sac County dfts is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss 14 brought on behalf of dft Huntington and others is GRANTED. The amended motions to dismiss 20 and 21 brought on behalf of the state and judicial dfts is GRANTED. Pltf is GRANTED leave to file and serve a new First Amended Complaint within 45 days of the date of this order. Pltf's motion to amend 33 is DENIED, and the 9/10/09, hearing date on the motion to amend is VACATED. (Kastilahn, A)
|
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
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.
