Cuviello v. City of Vallejo et al
| Joseph P. Cuviello |
| City of Vallejo, Claudia Quintana and M. Cutnick |
| 2:2016cv02584 |
| October 31, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Mateo |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
85
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/15/2021 ORDERING a pre-settlement conference telephone discussion on 2/2/2021 at 2:00 PM; Confidential settlement conference statements due not later than 1/26/2021; and Settlement Conferen ce by Zoom on 2/9/2021 at 09:00; Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the court in advance of the settlement conference, the following individuals must participate in the settlement conference: all of the attorney(s) who will try the case; the parties; and individuals with full authority to negotiate and settle the case, on any terms.(Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/14/2020 ORDERING 81 Settlement Conference set for 1/20/2021 at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson, and a telephone discussion, with a Pre-Settlement Conference on 1/14/ 2021 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. Only lead attorneys are to dial-in for the pre-settlement conference. At Judge Peterson's discretion, the joint telephonic discussion may be followed by private telephonic discussions between him and each party. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/16/2020 DENYING 73 Motion to Dismiss. The Court sets the following dates and deadlines: Fact Discovery Cutoff: 5/7/2021; Expert Disclosures: 5/21/2021; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: 6/11/2021; Expert Discovery Cutoff: 7/16/2021; Last Day for Hearing on Dispositive Motions: 9/17/2021. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/12/20 ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the District Judge assigned to this action pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/2020 ORDERING that the plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint is GRANTED, plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; defendants shall have 14 days to respond. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/14/2020 VACATING 41 Order and GRANTING 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendant City of Vallejo is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Municipal Code Chapter 8.56.030's permit requirement. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/3/2018 STAYING Case pending the outcome of plaintiff's interlocutory appeal of the court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, Case No. 17-16948. The parties shal l file an updated joint status report in this court, within 14 days of the date the 9th Court of Appeals issues its mandate in Case No. 17-16948. The status report shall provide the information outlined in the court's prior 3 order setting status conference, as well as any other information necessary to facilitate the scheduling of this matter. Case STAYED. (York, M)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/31/17 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 are ADOPTED. Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 18 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
39
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/29/17 RECOMMENDING that Defendants' 25 motion for partial summary judgment be GRANTED, Plaintiff's fifth claim also be DISMISSED, Judgment be entered in favor of defendant, and the Clerk be directed to close this case and vacate any remaining dates. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/16/2017 ORDERING 30 that the stipulated request to allow plaintiff to utilize the court's electronic filing system is DENIED. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
24
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/28/17 RECOMMENDING that the 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Benson, A)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/10/2017 ORDERING No pretrial scheduling order will issue at this time. Within 60 days from the date of this order, defendants shall file their proposed motion addressing their allegation that so me or all of this action is precluded by the judgment in the California state court action. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' motion within 30 days of defendants' filing that motion. Defendants shall file a reply, if any, 14 days thereafter. The court will issue a pretrial scheduling order, if necessary, on the court's own motion at a later time after the court has sought further input from the parties regarding the scheduling of this matter subsequent to the resolution of defendants' proposed motion.(Washington, S)
|
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.
