Bridgewater v. Tonna et al

Plaintiff: Sharon Bridgewater
Defendant: Roger Tonna, Mary Tonna and William Gilg
Case Number: 3:2010cv04966
Filed: November 3, 2010
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Maxine M. Chesney
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
November 21, 2011 126 Opinion or Order of the Court RELATED CASE ORDER. Bridgewater v. Tonna, C 10-4966, is related to Bridgewater v. Tonna, C 11-5407. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 21, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)
April 28, 2011 75 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TO SHORTEN TIME. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 28, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)
February 28, 2011 56 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HER FEDERAL CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION. Bridgewater is ordered to show cause, no later than March 18, 2011, why her federal claims should not be dismissed. Defendants shall file any reply to Bridgewater's response no later than March 25, 2011. The hearing on Bridgewater's motion for leave to amend and her motion for summary adjudication is continued from March 25, 2011 to April 29, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 28, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2011)
February 22, 2011 53 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 22, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2011)
February 18, 2011 52 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF. The hearing on plaintiffs' amended motion for summary adjudication and amended motion for leave to amend is cont inued from March 4, 2011 to March 25, 2011. Defendants' response(s) to plaintiffs' motions shall be filed no later than March 4, 2011. Plaintiff's reply to defendants' response(s) shall be filed no later than March 11, 2011. Plain tiff is directed not to file any further amendment to either her motion for summary adjudication or her motion for leave to amend unless plaintiff first seeks and obtains leave of court to file an amended motion. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 18, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011)
February 10, 2011 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The hearing on plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication/judgment is continued from February 18, 2011 to March 4, 2011. The Initi al Case Management Conference is continued from February 18, 2011 to April 29, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.; a Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than April 22, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 10, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2011)
January 27, 2011 36 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 27, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2011)
January 18, 2011 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 18, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2011)
January 5, 2011 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER VACATING JANUARY 14, 2011 HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 5, 2011. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2011)
December 6, 2010 10 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPY OF DOCUMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER 45 AND THE COURT'S STANDING ORDERS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 6, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2010)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bridgewater v. Tonna et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sharon Bridgewater
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Roger Tonna
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mary Tonna
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: William Gilg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?