Vaughn E Crawford v. City of Union City et al
| Vaughn E Crawford |
| City of Union City, Union City Police Department, Darryl C McAllister, Andrew Gannam, Michael Bedford and Daniel Rivas-Villegas |
| 3:2016cv03094 |
| June 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Alameda |
| Thelton E. Henderson |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
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
35
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF ENTIRE ACTION re 34 Stipulation filed by Vaughn E Crawford. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 4/3/2017. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said action be dismissed without prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety days, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, tha t the agreed consideration for the settlement has not been delivered, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this action shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/14/16. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER FOR PRETRIAL PREPARATION. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 9/12/2016. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2016)
|
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
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.
