Anselmo et al v. Mull et al
| Reverge Anselmo and Seven Hills Land and Cattle Company LLC |
| Russ Mull, Leslie Morgan, County of Shasta, Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta, Glenn E Hawes, Les Baugh and United States of America |
| County of Shasta and County of Shasta for the People of the State of California |
| Andrew Jensen, Nancy Haley, Matthew Rabbe and Matthew Kelley |
| 2:2012cv01422 |
| May 25, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Morrison C. England |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
152
STIPULATION and ORDER 151 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/9/2014 continuing 148 Defendant Les Baugh's Motion for Attorneys' Fees from 1/27/2014 to 2/24/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Kirksey Smith, K)
|
|
Filing
144
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/28/2013 ORDERING 134 that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, and that defendants' 133 motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/30/2013 DENYING 120 , 121 Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. (Kirksey Smith, K)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/15/2013 ORDERING that the first and second crossclaims brought by Shasta County in its First Amended Cross-Complaint, (Docket No. 1 -1), all counterclaims filed by plaintiffs on 11/14/2012, (Docket No. 99 ), and all counterclaims filed by Shasta County on 12/5/2012, (Docket No. 102 ), be, and the same hereby are, REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Shasta. Since the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims forming the basis of Shasta County's 104 motion for a preliminary injunction that motion is DENIED without prejudice as moot. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER granting 111 the application to continue the expert designation date for County of Shasta's Accounting Expert signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/5/13. The County shall have a continuance to designate a forensic accounta nt expert in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) beyond the currently scheduled March 8, 2013 exchange date, with the continuance not to exceed four weeks. The County shall designate a forensic accounting expert and disclose a report two weeks after Plai ntiffs provide their financial records for copying, with such production occurring within two weeks. Plaintiffs may counter-designate a forensic accountant expert within 30 days after the Countys designation in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2). The March 8, 2013 exchange date shall not be extended for other experts. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/24/12 ORDERING that Shasta County's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 50 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is SET for 11/26/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroo m 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than 11/13/12, that proposes deadlines for the close of discovery and filing of dispositive motions and dates for the pretrial conference and trial.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/24/2012 GRANTING 81 Shasta County's motion to modify the order dismissing claims be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED and the hearing on 11/5/2012 is VACATED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/10/12 ORDERING that plaintiffs' 46 Motion to Remand is DENIED: plaintiffs' 40 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED; plaintiffs' 35 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; Jensen's 59 Mo tion to Dismiss is GRANTED; Jensen's 61 Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot; and Shasta County's 43 Motion for an Order Precluding plaintiffs from further violations of mediation confidentiality and for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Shasta County has 20 days to file amended third-party claims against Jensen, if it can do so consistent with this Order. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
72
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/25/12 ORDERING that Third Party Defendant Andrew Jensen's Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Third Party Plaintiff County of Shastas Third Party Claims (the Motion), mistakenly file d on 8/3/12, in Case No. 2:12-cv-00361-WBS-EFB, is deemed properly filed in Case No. 2:12-cv-01422-WBS-EFB as though timely filed on 8/3/12. The hearing on the Motion shall proceed as noticed by Third Party Defendant Andrew Jensen on Tuesday, 10/9/12, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 5 before this Court. Andrew Jensen is not a party in Case No. 2:12-cv-00361-WBS-EFB and shall be removed from the Court's Docket for that case.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/21/2012 ORDERING 57 the Court DISMISSES Shasta County's claims against the United States, Matthew Rabbe, Nancy Haley and Matthew Kelley with prejudice. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/6/12: The United States' motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Shasta County has twenty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint, if it can do so consistent with this Order. (Kaminski, H)
|
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.
