Cuviello et al v. Cal Expo, et al
Shannon Campbell, Mark Ennis, Joseph P Cuviello and Deniz Bolbol |
Cal Expo, Norbert Bartosik, Brian May, Robert Craft, Walton, Mayes, Whittington, Menard and Robillard |
2:2011cv02456 |
September 16, 2011 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
Sacramento |
Edmund F. Brennan |
Kimberly J. Mueller |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 155 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/8/14 ORDERING The parties' joint motion for vacatur, ECF No. 146 is granted; The court vacates its orders of September 19, 2012, ECF No. 29 , and July 29, 2013, ECF No. 126 ; Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, ECF No. 134 , is denied as moot; and The parties are directed to file dispositional documents within thirty days of the date of this order. (Becknal, R) |
Filing 133 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/23/13 ORDERING In the original complaint and the First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs included a facial and as applied challenge to CA Penal Code section 853.6(i)(7); in both pleadings the line below th e caption of the claim says that it is brought by "all plaintiffs against the State of California." ECF No. 2 at 27; ECF No. 30 at 35. In its order dated 7/29/13, the court directed plaintiffs to show cause why this cause of action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the State of CA. ECF No. 126 at 34. On 8/12/13, plaintiffs responded that this was "an error," as they intended to bring the claim against the officers. ECF No. 128 at 2. Defendants have filed a respo nse, complaining that they had not responded earlier to this claim because the complaint identified the defendant as the State of CA. They also allege that Cal Expo should not be expected to defend the facial constitutionality of the statute as it is not the proper defendant and that plaintiffs cannot bring a cause of action against the officers for violations of the Penal Code. ECF No. 129. The court declines to resolve the questions raised by defendants' objections. To the extent the St ate of California appears to be a defendant in this action, it is DISMISSED. The court expresses no opinion on the viability of the claim against other defendants. It does, however, direct the parties to meet and confer about the propriety of including this claim in the Second Amended Complaint. (Becknal, R) |
Filing 126 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/27/2013 ORDERING 37 Plaintiffs' request to submit supplemental authority is DENIED; 35 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; 32 33 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRA NTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as detailed in this Order; Plaintiff's second amended complaint is due within 21 days of the date of this Order; Plaintiffs are directed to SHOW CAUSE within 14 days of the date of this Order why the State of California should not be dismissed as a defendant and the fourth claim dismissed as alleged in the First Amended Complaint.(Waggoner, D) |
Filing 125 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 64 and 103 Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/27/13. (Mueller, Kimberly) |
Filing 124 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/12/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' Application for a Temporary Restraining order 103 in the following respect: Defendants are enjoined from preventing plaintiffs from handing out leaflets in the public areas of Cal Expo outside of the Free Expression Zones during the California State Fair, July 12-28, 2013.(Mena-Sanchez, L) |
Filing 102 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/12/2013 ORDERING that within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff Cuviello and defendant Cal Expo may file simultaneous briefs, limited to ten pages each, discussing the impact of the revised Guidelines on plaintiff's challenge to the permit requirement. Plaintiff Cuviello's request to be allowed to use the court's ECF system is GRANTED. (Zignago, K.) |
Filing 29 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/17/12 ORDERING that defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in the body of this order; plaintiffs' amended complaint is due within 21 days of the filing date of this order. (Benson, A.) |
Filing 12 STIPULATION and ORDER 8 signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/30/11; The parties have entered into the following stipulation to extend the time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading. Defendants believe the complaint was not appropriately served on all the individual defendants and intended on filing a motion to dismiss for improper service. The parties have met and conferred on this matter. To avoid the time and expense in adjudicating such a motion, the parties have reached the fol lowing agreement: All Defendants, save Officer Rocky Mayes, will agree to deem service on them as proper; Plaintiffs will agree to give all Defendants (including Defendant Mayes) until November 18, 2011 to file a responsive pleading; All Defendants, save Officer Rocky Mayes, will agree to give Plaintiffs until December 15, 2011, oppose their motion to dismiss; Defendant Mayes is in the process of obtaining counsel, which is part of the reason an extension is necessary. He will be asked to join the stipulation on service and the extension on the opposition once he retains his own counsel.(Matson, R) |
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.