Hass v. County of Sacramento, et al.
| James D. Hass |
| Sean Gjerde, County of Sacramento Department of Support Services and Scott Jones |
| 2:2013cv01746 |
| August 22, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John A. Mendez |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
53
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/22/2015 ORDERING that the Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant County's 44 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first cause of action. As Plaintiff's sole cause of action against Defendant County is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, the matter will proceed without Defendant County. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/7/2014 GRANTING 31 Defendant County's Motion to Dismiss first cause of action with leave to amend; Plaintiff's 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. If Plaintiff elects not to file a Third Amended Complaint, the case will proceed without Defendant County. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
35
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/22/2014 ORDERING 34 Expert Disclosure by 7/10/2015, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure by 8/14/2015; Discovery due by 10/14/2015; Dispositive Motions filed by 11/18/2015, hearing on dispositive moti ons shall be on 12/16/2015 at 9:30 AM; Joint Pretrial Statement due by 2/5/2016; Pretrial Conference set for 2/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez; Trial set for 3/28/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/17/14 GRANTING 20 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's 20 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first and second causes of action is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant's 20 Motion to Dismiss P laintiff's third cause of action is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint must be filed within 20 days from the date of this order. Defendant's responsive pleading is due within 20 days thereafter. If Plaintiff elects not to file a Second Amended Complaint, the case will proceed without the Defendant County on the remaining causes of action. (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/19/2013 ORDERING that Defendants' 8 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first cause of action is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants' Motion to Dismi ss Plaintiff's second cause of action is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. Defendants' responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days thereafter. If Plaintiff elects not to file an Amended Complaint, the case will proceed without the first and second causes of action. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/23/2013 REFERRING this matter and the 4 Motion to Dismiss to Judge John A. Mendez pursuant to L.R. 302(c)(21); VACATING all pending dates; ORDERING the moving Defendant to promptly re-notice the pending Motion to Dismiss for hearing before the assigned district judge; ORDERING that the capion on all documents filed henceforth be No.: 2:13-cv-1746 JAM KJN. (Michel, G)
|
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.
