Boyd et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al
| 3:2004cv05459 |
| December 27, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Maxine M. Chesney |
| Joseph C. Spero |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
480
ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION re 435 . Judgment Debtor Exam for Marylon Boyd set for 11/17/2008 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 10/31/08. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2008)
|
|
Filing
476
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denying 471 Motion for Sanctions (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2008)
|
|
Filing
458
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application 439 for Order Staying and Enjoining Enforcement of Judgment of Costs Pending Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay and/or Enjoin Enforcement of Judgment of Costs Pending Appeal, and ORDERING Plaintiffs Not to Act so as to Thwart Any Future Collection Proceedings. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2008)
|
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 Northern 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
| Search for this case: Boyd et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
