A.A.M. et al v. City of Sacramento, et al
| A.A.M., Wendy Grijalva, A.B.M. and Joseph Morales |
| City of Sacramento and Jeremiah Jarvis |
| 2:2021cv01619 |
| September 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Morrison C England |
| Jeremy D Peterson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 15, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 ANSWER with Jury Demand by City of Sacramento, Jeremiah Jarvis. Attorney Richmond, Sean D. added.(Richmond, Sean) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: All Defendants served on 10/7/2021. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Katz, Stewart) Modified on 10/21/2021 (Coll, A). |
| Filing 4 CIVIL COVER SHEET by A.A.M., A.B.M., Wendy Grijalva, Joseph Morales (Katz, Stewart) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Tupolo, A) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Sacramento, Jeremiah Jarvis* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Stewart L. Katz* *Law Office of Stewart Katz* *555 University Ave., Suite 270* *Sacramento, CA 95825*. (Tupolo, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Joseph Morales, A.A.M., A.B.M., Wendy Grijalva. Attorney Katz, Stewart L. added. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-9810553) (Katz, Stewart) |
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.
