State of California v. United States Department of Labor et al
| State of California and Sacramento Regional Transit District |
| United States Department of Labor and Thomas E Perez |
| 2:2013cv02069 |
| October 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Dale A. Drozd |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 0701 |
| 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
168
RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/2/20 ORDERING that this case is related with member case 2:20-cv-00953-JAM-KJN. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/12/19 GRANTING 156 Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The Motion for Leave to Intervene 140 filed by AmalgamatedTransit Union ("ATU") is considered WITHDRAWN. The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the permanent injunction entered in this case at ECF No. 137 .(Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/22/2019 ORDERING the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report within 14 days outlining how this case should move forward. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/12/18, ORDERING that the hearing date of 4/20/18 on Amalgamated Transit Union's 140 Motion to Intervene is VACATED. ATU's Motion shall be held in abeyance by the Court until suc h time, if any, that ATU notifies the Court that Defendants have voluntarily dismissed their appeal from this Court's final judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and proposed a new date for the Motion to be heard, which date shall be no earlier than 28 days after filing of the notification with the Court. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/24/2018 GRANTING 99 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the DOLs § 13(c)(1) denial as to MST classic employees. Given this order, the State has prevailed on all issues. CASE CLOSED. (Hunt, G)
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/19/16 ORDERING that the parties' cross MOTIONS are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court grants Plaintiffs' request to amend the supplemental complaint to allege a claim based on the DOL's denial of certification under section 13 (c)(1) with regard to MST's classic employees. An amended supplemental complaint shall be filed within seven days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/19/2016 ORDERING that the hearing on Defendants' 99 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' 104 Motion for Summary Judgment set for 5/2/2016 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET for 5/13/2016 at 10:00 a.m. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/7/16 ORDERING that the motion to enforce 87 is GRANTED IN PART. The decision on remand is VACATED IN PART inasmuch as the DOL concluded SacRT has not preserved rights under anexisting collect ive bargaining agreement. The motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint 88 is GRANTED. The proposed supplemental complaint, ECF No. [88-2], is DEEMED FILED. The defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 30 days of the date this order is filed. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/16/2015 DENYING 89 Ex Parte Request to Shorten Time without prejudice subject to renewal upon more specific justification. (Michel, G.)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/30/2014. Defendants' 64 Motion to Dismiss the Spending Clause claim is GRANTED without leave to amend. Defendant's [9-1] Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment on APA claims is DENIED. Plaintiffs' 54 Motion for Summary Judgment on APA claims is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to Department of Labor for further proceedings. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/18/14: Ex parte application 65 is granted. ATU will not participate in argument on September 30, but may make itself available should the court have questions for it. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/22/2014 ORDERING 9 Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs Spending Clause and Declaratory Judgment Act claims is GRANTED; and plaintiffs' amended complaint to the extent allowed in this Order is due within 14 days of the date of this Order. (Waggoner, D)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/24/2014 ORDERING Plaintiffs' motion 18 to complete and/or to supplement the administrative record and for limited discovery is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; Defendant's 9 motion to di smiss hearing is reset for 5/23/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; to the extent a party wishes to submit a supplemental brief in light of this order, that party's brief shall not exceed ten pages and must be filed no later than 5/9/2014. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/7/14 ORDERING BART's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/14/14 GRANTING 10 Motion for Leave to file an amicus curiae brief or briefs. Any amicus brief that ATU decides to file, either in support or opposition to the 9 MOTION to DISMISS must be filed no later than 14 days before the noticed date for hearing. (Donati, J)
|
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.
