Martin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California Nevada and Utah et al
| Renee L. Martin |
| American Automobile Association of Northern California Nevada and Utah, AAA Northern California Nevada and Utah Insurance Exchange and CSAA Insurance Exchange |
| 2:2015cv02496 |
| December 1, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Solano |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
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
38
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/9/2017 RECOMMENDING that the 22 Motion to Dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; REFERRING this matter to Judge Troy L. Nunley; ORDERING that any objections be filed within fourteen days. (Michel, G.)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/7/2016 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 22 Motion to Dismiss to 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ORDERING the plaintiff to s how cause, in writing, by 9/28/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending 22 Motion to Dismiss; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an opposition to the 22 Motion to Dismiss, or statement of non-opposition thereto, by 9/28/2016; CAUTIONING the plaintiff that a failure to file an opposition to the pending 22 Motion to Dismiss will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules; ORDERING the defendant to file a reply by 10/5/2016. (Michel, G.)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/22/2016 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 6 Motion to Dismiss as follows: Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and intention al infliction of emotional distress are DISMISSED with leave to amend; Plaintiff's claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and punitive damages are DISMISSED without leave to amend. As Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on 7/15/2016, the portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation that Plaintiff be granted 30 days to file an amended complaint is NOT ADOPTED as moot. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
17
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/2016 RECOMMENDING the Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss be granted as follows: (a) Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, violation of 42 U.S.C. § ; 1981, and intentional infliction of emotional distress be dismissed with leave to amend, (b) Plaintiff's claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and punitive damages be dismissed without leave to am end; Plaintiff be granted 30 days from the date of service of any order adopting these findings and recommendations to file an amended complaint as provided herein. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled First Amended Complaint. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
|
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.
