City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al
Plaintiff: City of Palmdale
Defendant: California High-Speed Rail Authority and Roelof Van Ark
Case Number: 2:2011cv01808
Filed: July 11, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: Garland E. Burrell
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/14/11 ORDERING Plaintiff's Misuse of Federal Grant Funds claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Since that claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Plaintiff's state claim for misuse of state bond funds also is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This action shall be closed. Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED.(Matson, R)
August 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER re: 25 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/11/11. Defendants shall have two weeks from the date of this Order to file responses to the Complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
August 3, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr on 8/2/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall explain the basis of subject matter jurisdiction in a filing due on or before August 12, 2011. Any response to this filing shall be filed on or befor e August 22, 2011. A hearing on the subject matter jurisdiction issue is scheduled to commence at 10:0 0 a.m. on August 29, 2011. Further, in light of the briefing schedule regarding the subject matter jurisdiction issue, the hearing on Plaintiff� 39;s motion for a preliminary injunction currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 22, 2011, is rescheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on October 3, 2011. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the preliminary injunction motion on or before September 12, 2011. Plaintiff may file a reply on or before September 19, 2011. (Duong, D)
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: City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: California High-Speed Rail Authority
Represented By: William Landro Carter
Represented By: Amy Julia Winn
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: Roelof Van Ark
Represented By: William Landro Carter
Represented By: Amy Julia Winn
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: City of Palmdale
Represented By: Deborah J. Fox
Represented By: Noel J Doran, NCAED
Represented By: Wm Matthew Ditzhazy
Represented By: Dawn A. McIntosh
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?