Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al
| Markus M. Hall, Monique G. Rankin and Lindsey K. Sanders |
| City of Fairfield, Nick McDowell, Chris Grimm, Tom Shackford, Zack Sandoval, Steve Crane, Marc L. Young and In-N-Out Burger |
| 2:2010cv00508 |
| March 2, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
260
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 3/30/2017 ORDERING that the judgment in this action is VACATED pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/27/2015 ORDERING that the parties' 254 joint motion to vacate judgment is conditionally GRANTED subject to the granting of plaintiffs' petitions for determinations of factual innocence by the Solano County Superior Court. As requested by the parties, after the Solano County Superior Court rules upon plaintiffs' petitions for factual innocence, plaintiffs' counsel shall notify the court of the decision of the Solano Co unty Superior Court. If the Solano County Superior Court grants the plaintiffs' petitions for determinations of factual innocence, this court will issue an order vacating the judgment in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
227
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2014 GRANTING IN PART 211 Motion for Attorney Fees; AWARDING the plaintiffs a total of $308,221.80 in attorneys' fees. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
187
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/13 ORDERING that the Defendants' request for reconsideration is DENIED; the parties' joint request for additional time for voir dire and opening statements is GRANTED; the Jury Trial is confirmed to commence on 4/29/13 at 9:00 a.m. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/25/2013 ORDERING that a Trial Confirmation Hearing is set for 4/12/2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned. The Jury Trial, estimated length of approximately twelve court days, is set to commence on 4/29/2013, at 9:00 a.m., before the undersigned. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/7/2013 ORDERING that partial summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' state law false arrest claims. Further, Defendants' request to expand the Tentative Ruling to grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs federal false arrest claims is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
169
TENTATIVE RULING GRANTING SUA SPONTE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW FALSE ARREST CLAIMS signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 4/10/12. "Because the undisputed facts indicate that [Defendants] accepted delivery of [Plaintiffs] after [Young] made a citizen's arrest," partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' state law false arrest claim is tentatively GRANTED. Arpin, 261 F.3d at 921 (9th Cir. 2001). Any party may file and serv e written objections to any part of this tentative ruling no later than 5/14/12. Any objection must specify the requested correction, addition, and/or deletion. Any response to an objection shall be filed and served no later than 5/21/12. If no objection is filed, this tentative ruling will become final without further order of this Court. If an objection is filed, this matter may be scheduled for hearing on 6/4/12 at 9:00 a.m. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/4/12. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
165
ORDER RE TWO TRIAL DOCUMENTS signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 4/3/2012. Attached are the Court's voir dire questions and preliminary jury instructions. The Court notes that certain of Plaintiffs' proposed voir dire questions appe ar aimed at "lay[ing] a foundation for [their] case," and inappropriately seek to instruct the jury on the law. DeLaCruz v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 405 F.2d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 1968). "While... a [party] is entitled to a voir dire that fairly and adequately probes a juror's qualifications, a [party] is not necessarily entitled to test the jurors on their capacity to accept his [or her] theory of the case." United States v. Toomey,764 F.2d 678, 683 (9th Cir. 1985). Further, the parties are notified that the Court only has nine court days within which trial must be completed. Therefore, if a party reasonably opines that more time is needed, that party shall request a continuance of the trial date. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/23/12 re: Defendants' Objections to Final Pretrial Order; Supplement to Final Pretrial Order. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/11/12; the cross motions for summary judgment of each Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim against each Defendant Officer is denied; Defendants Grimm, Sandoval, Shackford and Crane& #039;s motion for summary judgment of their defense of qualified immunity against each Plaintiff's federal unlawful arrest claim is granted; Defendant City of Fairfield's motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment unla wful arrest claim alleged under Monell is granted and Plaintiffs' motion is denied; Defendants' motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff Hall's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim is granted; Defendants' motion for summary judg ment is granted on each Plaintiff's claim alleged under Civil Code section 51.7 and denied on each Plaintiffs' Civil Code section 52.1 claim; Defendant Officers' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs state battery and unlawful arre st claims is denied; and each Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is dismissed, Plaintiff Monique Rankin's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim is dismissed, and Plaintiff Monique Rankin's state battery claim is dismissed. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/19/11 DENYING 68 Motion to Supplement Expert Witness Disclosure. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/7/2011 DENYING 67 Motion to Seal; Motion for Sanctions. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/21/2011 GRANTING In-N-Out Burger and Marc L. Young's 39 amended motion to find good faith settlement agreement. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/12/11 ORDERING that Pltfs submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a "Request to Seal Documents" and the documents Pltfs seek to have seale d. Pltfs state this sealing request is made in connection with their motion for summary adjudication. Pltfs' "Request to Seal Documents" should have been filed on the public docket, the Clerk shall file pltfs' "Request to S eal Documents" on the public docket. Pltfs indicate their authority justifying sealing the other documents is a "Stipulation and Order to Protect Confidential Information" 35 . However, this authority has not been shown sufficient to justify the sealing request; therefore, the request is Denied. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/22/11 DENYING 40 Stipulation and Proposed Order For Expedited ruling on Defendants In-N-Out Burger and Marc L. Young's motion to approve the Stipulation re Good Faith Settlement. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
35
STIPULATION and ORDER 34 to Protect Confidential Information, signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/21/11. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/11 GRANTING 22 Motion to Compel with regard to pltf's request for production nos. 4 and 7, and with respect to the appearance of dfts Sandoval and Shackford to give further deposition testimony. All documents shall be produced on or before 2/22/11. (Manzer, C)
|
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.
