Murillo v. City of Woodland et al
Plaintiff: Desiree Murillo
Defendant: City of Woodland, Ryan Piercy and Casey Sullivan
Case Number: 2:2009cv03117
Filed: November 9, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Garland E. Burrell
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/8/11. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. CASE CLOSED pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Manzer, C)
July 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/6/11 re 87 Notice of Settlement ORDERING that the parties file dispositive papers on or before 7/20/11; if unable to file on or before that date, the parties may file a notice providing reasons why such documents could not be filed. All previously scheduled dates in this case are vacated.(Meuleman, A)
May 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/23/2011 ORDERING Defendant City of Woodland's 52 Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; and Defendant Ryan Piercy's 62 motion for partial summary judgment, by way of partial joinder in the City's Motion for Summary Adjudication in GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. (Reader, L)
April 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/22/11 ORDERING the Hearing on 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to 5/11/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Plaintiff shal l file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 52 Motion by 4/27/11. Replies to plaintiff's opposition, if any, are due on or before 5/5/11. Plaintiff shall file, on or before 4/27/11, a written statement SHOWING CAUSE why sanctions, including dismissal of plaintiff's case, should not be imposed on plaintiff and/or her counsel for plaintiff's failure to prosecute her case. (Donati, J)
April 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/08/11 ORDERING that plf's 58 Request to Continue the Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED w/o prejudice; parties' 59 Stipulation and proposed order Extending Expert Discovery is NOT approved w/o prejudice; parties' 60 Stipulation and proposed order Setting a Settlement Conference is NOT approved, w/o prejudice. (Benson, A.)
January 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 47 STIPULATION and ORDER 46 , signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/10/11: Initial expert disclosures are DUE on or before January 31, 2011. Rebuttal expert disclosures are DUE on or before February 14, 2011. The remainder of the courts Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall remain in effect. (Kastilahn, A)
November 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 45 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/15/2010 ORDERING that Initial Expert Witness Disclosure extended to 1/11/2011. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure extended to 2/14/2011. (Zignago, K.)
July 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/19/10 ORDERING that Counsel for Plaintiff is permitted to appear by telephone at the Status Conference set for 7/29/10 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's Counsel can be reached at (408) 286-2300 at the time of the Status Conference.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
June 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/9/10 ORDERING that the parties' Request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order is DENIED without prejudice.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
February 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/18/10 ORDERING dfts' Motion to Dismiss 8 DENIED AS MOOT. (Carlos, K)
February 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/1/2010 ORDERING 12 joint statement, filing deadline due 3/4/2010. (Reader, L)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Murillo v. City of Woodland et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Desiree Murillo
Represented By: Jeffrey Davis Janoff
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: City of Woodland
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: Ryan Piercy
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: Casey Sullivan
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?