Sharp Inspection Group, Inc. et al v. City of Sacramento et al
| Sharp Inspection Group, Inc., Fred Sharp and Robert Sharp |
| Marc Lee and City of Sacramento |
| 2:2019cv02156 |
| October 25, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Morrison C England |
| Kendall J Newman |
| Contract: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 *AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Defendants' 1/16/2020 Motion to Dismiss is noticed for an unavailable hearing date. Accordingly, the 1/16/2020 hearing is VACATED and RESET on 1/23/2020 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 7. On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the *1/23/2020 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss #5 is VACATED and SUBMITTED without appearance and argument. The opposition or statement of non-opposition and reply due dates shall be filed in accordance with the *1/23/2020 motion hearing date. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. Any outstanding request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. For future filings, counsel is directed to the Court's website for available civil law and motion dates at www.caed.uscourts.gov. (Deutsch, S) |
| Filing 6 [DISREGARD. SEE ECF NO. 7] MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: Defendants' 1/16/2020 Motion to Dismiss is noticed for an unavailable hearing date. Accordingly, the 1/16/2020 hearing is VACATED and RESET on 1/23/2020 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 7. On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the 1/16/2020 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss #5 is VACATED and SUBMITTED without appearance and argument. The opposition or statement of non-opposition and reply due dates shall be filed in accordance with the 1/16/2020 motion hearing date. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed it will be scheduled at a later date. Any outstanding request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. For future filings, counsel is directed to the Court's website for available civil law and motion dates at www.caed.uscourts.gov. (Deutsch, S) Modified on 12/5/2019 (Deutsch, S). |
| Filing 5 MOTION to DISMISS by City of Sacramento, Marc Lee. Attorney Bickel, Melissa D. added. Motion Hearing set for 1/16/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: #1 Points and Authorities, #2 Notice)(Bickel, Melissa) |
| Filing 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Fred Sharp, Robert Sharp, Sharp Inspection Group, Inc. re #1 Complaint. (Davidson, Thornton) Modified on 10/30/2019 (Kaminski, H). |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Tupolo, A) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Sacramento, Marc Lee* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Thornton Davidson* *Thornton Davidson, P. C.* *2520 W Shaw Lane, Suite 101-C* *Fresno, CA 93711*. (Tupolo, A) |
| PAYMENT for Civil Case filing fee in the amount of $ 400, receipt number 0972-8535537. (Davidson, Thornton) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Sharp Inspection Group, Inc., Fred Sharp, Robert Sharp. Attorney Davidson, Thornton added. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Davidson, Thornton) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
