Johnson v. Henson et al
| Scott N. Johnson |
| Robert D Henson and Shauna L Henson |
| 2:2009cv02286 |
| August 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| John A. Mendez |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| 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
29
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/1/11; 27 findings and recommendations filed October 27, 2011 are adopted in full; Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendants Robert D. Henson and Shauna L. Henson is granted; Plai ntiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $8000.00; Plaintiff is granted an injunction requiring defendants to provide for the correct number and type of properly configured disabled parking spaces, including a van accessible disabled parking space, accessible route, accessibility signage and striping in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) contained in 28 C.F.R. Part 36; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
27
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/27/2011 RECOMMENDING that the 22 Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Robert D. Henson and Shauna L. Henson be granted; that the Pltf. be awarded statutory da mages in the amount of $8,000; that the Pltf. be granted an injunction requiring Dfts. to provide for the correct number and type of properly configured disabled parking space(s), including a van accessible disabled parking space, accessible rou te, accessibility signage and striping in accordance with the ADA and the ADAAG contained in 28 C.F.R. Part 36; and that the Clerk be directed to close the case. Motion referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/28/11 ORDERING Douglas Jack Haycock to pay sanctions in the amount of $250. The sum is to be paid personally by Mr. Haycock w/i 14 days; the 6 Answer filed 11/20/09 is STRICKEN; Clerk to enter a default against Robert D. Henson and Shauna L. Henson as to all claims filed against them. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER AND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/1/11 ORDERING the trial date of May 2, 2011 is hereby vacated; The case is set for trial January 9, 2012 and a final pretrial conference set for December 14, 2011. The p arties' joint pretrial statement is due no later than November 22,2012. Douglas Jack Haycock is ordered to show cause in writing, within fourteen days of the date of this order, why he should not be sanctioned $250 for his failure to parti cipate in the preparation of the joint status report and his failure to appear at the final pretrial conference. He is also ordered to show cause in writing, within fourteen days of the date of this order, why the answer filed November 20, 2009, should not be stricken and a clerks entry of default filed. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/5/11 ORDERING the Pretrial Conference RE-SET for 3/23/2011 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez and Jury Trial is RE-SET for 5/2/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez.(Carlos, K)
|
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.
