Friends of Hope Valley v. Federick Company
| Friends of Hope Valley |
| Frederick Company |
| 2:2009cv02866 |
| October 14, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| John A. Mendez |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2410 Quiet Title |
| 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
107
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/15/2010 re 106 ORDERING that the Court hereby extend the date for the parties to object to the Pretrial Conference Order to and including January 10, 2011.(Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/7/10 GRANTING Defendant's Exparte Request 102 to Supplement Joint Pretrial Conference Statement. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/8/2010 ORDERING that for the reasons stated at the hearing, 27 summary judgment as to the patented parcels is GRANTED. Plaintiff cannot establish a necessary element of its quiet title claim as it relates to that portion of Defendants property that was acquired by federal patent in February 1969. These patented parcels were not privately owned for any five-year period before the cause of action for implied-in-law dedication of a public recreational e asement was eliminated in March 1972. As to the remaining parcels, Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether a public recreational easement exists on those parcels. The Court also finds that there are genuine issues of materi al fact with respect to the issue of whether Plaintiff can or cannot establish a through easement on the two trails referenced in the complaint. Accordingly, summary judgment on Plaintiff's quiet title claim with respect to the remaining parcels and two trails is DENIED. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/5/10 GRANTING the Defendant's Application to File Supplemental Brief. Defendant may file Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment attached as Exhibit 1 to the Application. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER granting 68 Plaintiff's Application to File Supplemental Brief and Declarations signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/24/10. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/13/2010 ORDERING 37 Discovery deadline EXTENDED to 9/30/2010; the remainder of the Status Pre-Trial Scheduling Order 12 remains unaffected by this order. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
43
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/13/10. Plaintiff's deposition of Devere Dressler and Plaintiff's inspection of the property at issue in this action may both occur after the 9/13/10 discovery cutoff.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
24
STIPULATION and ORDER 22 for Extension of Time signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/20/2010. Parties shall serve Expert Witnesses Disclosures by 8/16/2010. Supplemental Disclosure and Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts shall be served by 8/30/2010. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/19/2010 granting in part 14 Motion to Compel; On or before 8/2/2010, plaintiff shall produce to defendant, and lodge with the court, a document summarizing the factual information contained in the third-party witness questionnaires at issue, as described above. On or before 8/2/2010, plaintiff shall provide defendant with revised privilege logs, as discussed above, that permit defendant and the court to adequately assess plaintiff's claims of privilege or protection from disclosure. In addition to supplementing the privilege logs as described above, plaintiff may provide defendant with declarations substantiating the claim of privilege or protection from disclosure with respect to the communications among non-attorneys. This portion of the order pertains to the following entries: entries 13 through 17 in Privilege Log One, and entries 1-3, 5-8, 13-29, 33-38 and 40 in Privilege Log Two.(Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
19
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/30/2010 re 18 ORDERING that the Discovery ddl is EXTENDED to 9/13/2010. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/23/2010. Defendant's 14 Motion to Compel Hearing is RE-SET for 7/15/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN). Parties shall file their Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement w/Court on or before 7/1/2010. Continuance of Discovery is NOT APPROVED, but parties may request alteration of Scheduling Order from District Judge Mendez. (Marciel, M) Modified on 6/24/2010 (Schultz, C).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Friends of Hope Valley v. Federick Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Frederick Company | |
| 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: Friends of Hope Valley | |
| Represented By: | Matthew D. Zinn |
| 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.
