Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton v. Burlington Northern, et al
| Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton |
| Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 2:2010cv00634 |
| March 18, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Torts to Land |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses |
| 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
32
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/7/11: Railroads' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/13/2011 ORDERING 25 All further proceedings in this action are STAYED until 9/2/2011, or final disposition of the Railroads' appeal and the Agency's cross-appeal in the 2005 Action, whichever occu rs first; within 30 days of 9/2/2011, or receiving notice that the Court of Appeals has fully and finally disposed of the appeal and cross-appeal in the 2005 Action, the parties shall file with the Court a joint statement setting forth the parties' positions regarding the impact of the Court of Appeals' decision on further proceedings in this Action or the need for further stay. CASE STAYED (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/9/2010 GRANTING 19 Motion to Stay. (Zignago, 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.
