Dean, et al v. Sacramento County, et al
| Dennis Dean, Sr. and Susannah Hardesty |
| Sacramento County, Scott Jones and Amy Humphreys |
| 2:2013cv00730 |
| April 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John A. Mendez |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
85
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/12/16 ORDERING that the new deadline to file dismissal documents shall be 10/24/2016. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
74
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 04/04/16 ORDERING that plaintiff Susannah Hardesty DISMISSES her claims against defendants Salvador Robles, Darryl Meadows and Randy Moya; each party is to bear his/her own costs and attorneys' fees. The claims of plaintiffs Dennis Dean Sr. and Amy Dean against defendants remain. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
59
STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/8/15 ORDERING that all Dispositive Motions shall be filed by 6/29/2016. Hearing on such motions shall be on 7/27/2016 at 9:30 a.m.. All discovery shall be completed by 5/20/2 016. Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 3/18/2016 and Supplemental disclosure and disclosure of any rebuttal experts due 4/1/2016. The Final Pretrial Conference is SET for 9/2/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. Jury Trial is SET for 10/17/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. The parties estimate a trial length of approximately 7 to 13 days. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/3/14. The Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE the County's MOTION to DISMISS the second cause of action and DENIES the County's MOTION to DISMISS the Plaintiffs claims in the first cause of action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/15/2014 ORDERING 25 the Court GRANTS the County's Motion to Strike the claims brought on behalf of Decedent from the SAC. The Plaintiffs Monell claims against theCounty are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEN D. The County's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' individual claim against Doe Officers in the second cause of action is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint must be filed within 20 days from the date of this Order. Defendant's responsive pleading is due within 20 days thereafter. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/22/14: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/9/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' Motion To Relieve Plaintiff From Complying With California Government Code Section 945.4 And For An Order To Allow Filing Of Late Claim Per Government Code Section 946.6(C)(1) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' request for a further extension of time to file their amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have until 10/12/2013, to file their amended complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/13/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall have 60 days to file their amended complaint and shall not add any new causes of action; the hearing on the 5 Motion to Dismiss is VACATED as moot; defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within 20 days. (Manzer, C)
|
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.
