Mkrtchyan v. Sacramento County et al
| Aramn Mkrtchyan |
| Sacramento County, Sacramento County Sherriffs Department, Grant Nugent, Yang, Grout, Dominguez, Meier and R. Scott Jones |
| 2:2017cv02366 |
| November 12, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Troy L. Nunley |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
98
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/14/2023 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 69 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: GRANTING as to Defendant's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th claims and DENYING Motion otherwise.; and DENYING 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness within 30 days after the date of entry of this order. (Clemente Licea, O)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/19/2023 DENYING 79 Ex Parte Application. (Clemente Licea, O)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/30/2023 DENYING 70 Motion for Leave to File a 4th Amended Complaint. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/13/2022 DENYING 57 Motion for Reconsideration and DENYING 60 Motion for Extension of Time. (Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/14/22 GRANTING 67 Defendants' motion for administrative relief and permits Defendants' to file a five (5) page limit extension to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants& #039; Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed 25 pages. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file a five (5) page limit extension in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. No increase will be made as to the Reply page limit. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/11/2022 AWARDING plaintiff $15,459.80 for the fees and costs incurred in bringing 44 Motion for Sanctions regarding the video evidence. Defendants shall pay plaintiff's counsel this amount within 30 days of the date of this order. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/2021 GRANTING 44 Motion for Sanctions regarding spoliation of video evidence, DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's request for an adverse inference instruction as a sanction, and A WARDING Plaintiff monetary sanctions against defendants in the form of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by plaintiff in bringing the motion for sanctions regarding the video evidence, including the further briefing order. Plaintiff shall submit a declaration in support of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs within 14 days of the date of this order, and defendants shall file a response to the declaration within 10 days of service of plaintiff's declaration. (Huang, H)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/23/2021 DENYING 44 Motion for Sanctions to the extent it concerns the medical records discussed in this Order. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/20/2021 ORDERING within 21 days of the date of this order, defendants to file the further briefing discussed in this order. (Henshaw, R)
|
|
Filing
39
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/27/2021 ORDERING that Plaintiff may file the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this Order and all dates in the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order shall remain in effect. (Tupolo, A)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/15/2021 GRANTING 24 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court REVISES it's prior ruling as to Plaintiff's fifth through twelfth causes of action and GRANTS Defendants' 11 Motion to D ismiss those claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. Defendants are afforded twenty-one (21) days from the date Plaintiff files an amended complaint to file a responsive pleading. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
10
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/12/2018 ORDERING that defendant County of Sacramento may have a further extension of time up to and including 2/16/2018 to file a responsive pleading. The parties may have a 30-day extension of time to and including 4/16/2018, within which to file a Joint Status Report. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
8
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/4/2018 ORDERING that Defendant, County of Sacramento, may have an EXTENSION of time up to and including February 2, 2018, within which to file a Responsive pleading to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; in any manner permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Becknal, R)
|
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.
