Grant v. United States of America, et al
Plaintiff: Mark A. Grant
Defendant: United States of America, Mary Pickett, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Administration San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center, Darrell M. McDonald and Mercury Insurance Group
Case Number: 2:2011cv00360
Filed: February 9, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
Presiding Judge: Kendall J. Newman
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers Liability
Cause of Action: 05 U.S.C. ยง 552
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
October 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/22/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff's objection and 84 Request that defendants' declarations in support of the motion for summary judgment be stricken fo r lack of authentic signature be DENIED and that Defendants SHALL FILE Exhibits C and F to the Declaration of Darrell M. McDonald re: 80 Motion for Summary Judgment under seal pursuant to Local Rule 141 within 7 days from the date of service of th is order; and RECOMMENDING 87 , 88 Motions to Dismiss be denied and that 80 Motion for summary judgment on the pleadings be granted; and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
September 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/27/12 re 87 Motion to Dismiss, 88 Motion to Dismiss, and 92 Statement of Non-Opposition: If the parties desire to have this action dismissed with prejudice, they shall file a stipulati on of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) within 7 days of this order. In the absence of such a filed stipulation of dismissal, the pending motions noticed for hearing on 10/18/12 shall remain on calendar. (Meuleman, A)
August 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/17/12 ORDERING 80 Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard by the undersigned on 10/18/12, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. Plaintiff shall file his written opposition to defendants' mo tion for summary judgment, or statement of non-opposition, on or before 8/30/12. Defendants shall file their reply brief, if any, on or before 9/6/12. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is further modified such that: a. The law and motion compl etion deadline is continued to 10/18/12, for the limited purpose of hearing defendants' motion for summary judgment. b. The final pretrial conference is continued to 2/19/13, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4. c. The bench trial is continued to 5/21/13, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom 4.(Matson, R)
June 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/28/12 ORDERING Defendants' ex parte application 78 is granted; Plaintiff's medical condition giving rise to this action may be referred to by number; Plaintiffs medical condition giv ing rise to his military discharge may be referred to by number. Either party, or both parties, may communicate the identity of the medical condition corresponding to the number 1 or 2, or both, to the court for chambers use, not on the Clerk's public record, but with notice to the other party of the substance of the communication.The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is modified such that the law and motion completion deadline is continued to 9/6/12. All other dates in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall remain the same. (Becknal, R)
May 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 77 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/16/2012 ORDERING 76 that the parties' Stipulated Protective Order is APPROVED, except that the court shall not "retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in the above entitled action" as provided in Section 14 of the Stipulated Protective Order. (Reader, L)
January 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/23/12; The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 15, 2011, are ADOPTED; and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 63) is denied. (Matson, R)
November 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 74 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/14/2011 RECOMMENDING 63 that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his Amended Complaint be denied; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
October 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 70 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/28/11 ORDERING that "Veterans Administration San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center" hereby is DISMISSED w/prejudice as a defendant, and the United State s of America Department of Veterans Affairs, a federal agency ("VA"), hereby is SUBSTITUTED in its place as a defendant; the headquarters of dft VA, in Washington, DC, has not received service of a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail; dft VA hereby WAIVES process service upon its headquarters. (Benson, A.)
October 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/19/11 ORDERING that the November 17, 2011 hearing on plaintiff's motion to strike is VACATED,and this matter is submitted without a hearing. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' 65 Amended Answer is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
October 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/7/2011 ORDERING 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as MOOT: and pltf's # 63 motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint shall remain on calendar on 11/10/2011. (Reader, L)
July 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 55 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/26/2011 re 54 ORDERING that plaintiff's 50 motion for leave to amend the complaint filed July 21, 2011 shall be deemed FILED as the first amended complaint in the action . The date for response to the first amended complaint shall be September 8, 2011. Plaintiff's motion leave to amend the complaint, filed July 21, 2011 set for hearing on August 25, 2011, shall be TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. Defendant Darrell McDonald stands DISMISSED with prejudice from this action.(Duong, D)
July 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/22/2011 ORDERING Pursuant to pltf's request, pltf's 31 motion for judicial review of the "scope of employment certification" is deemed WITHDRAWN; Pursuant to pltf's 32 request, pltf's motion for leave to amend his complaint, is deemed WITHDRAWN; pltf's 50 motion for leave to amend his complaint, shall be heard on 8/25/2011, as noticed by plaintiff. (Reader, L)
July 19, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/19/11 ORDERING that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 9, 2011 30 are ADOPTED; Defendants Mary Pickett and Mercury Casualty Company's motion to dismiss is granted; Plaintiff's fifth and sixth claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice; Defendants Mary Pickett and Mercury Casualty Company are dismissed from this action. (Becknal, R)
July 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/7/11, ORDERING that plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order to effectuate proper service of process. Within seven days of the completion of such service, plaintiff shall file a written notice of the same. A further status (pretrial scheduling) conference is SET for 10/6/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties shall file a joint status report at least seven days in advance of the status (pretrial scheduling) conference. Formal discovery in this matter is stayed until the further status (pretrial scheduling) conference has been held.(Kastilahn, A)
July 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/5/2011 GRANTING 34 Counsel for Mercury Insurance Group, and Mary Pickett request to appear telephonically at the 7/7/2011 Status Pretrial Scheduling Conference.(Reader, L)
June 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 30 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/8/11 RECOMMENDING that 8 Motion to Dismiss 1 Complaint filed by Mercury Insurance Group, Mary Pickett, be granted and that plaintiff's fifth and sixth claims for relief be dismissed with prejudice and that defendants Mary Pickett and Mercury Casualty Company be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Meuleman, A)
April 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/7/2011. The Mercury defendants shall file and serve, on or before 4/18/2011, a Supplemental Brief addressing issues raised. Brief shall not exceed 5 pages in length. If plaintiff wishes to file a Response to Supplemental Brief, it shall be filed w/in 14 days of being served. Hearing will be set only if Court deems such to be necessary or helpful to disposition of Motion to Dismiss. (Marciel, M)
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: Grant v. United States of America, 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: Mark A. Grant
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: United States of America
Represented By: Yoshinori H. T. Himel
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: Mary Pickett
Represented By: Kristina Lee Velarde
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: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Administration San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center
Represented By: Yoshinori H. T. Himel
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: Darrell M. McDonald
Represented By: Yoshinori H. T. Himel
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: Mercury Insurance Group
Represented By: Kristina Lee Velarde
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?