Ha v. Sweet et al
Hung Ha |
Sweet, B. Sato, Julia, Sonia Lam, J. Miceli, B. Long and Kevin Thompson |
4:2009cv01392 |
March 30, 2009 |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
Civil Rights: Other Office |
Alameda |
Saundra Brown Armstrong |
Plaintiff |
Federal Question |
28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 20 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 9 Motion for New Trial; DENYING 10 Motion for New Trial; DENYING AS MOOT 13 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; DENYING AS MOOT 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fe e. A check in the amount of $350.00 shall be refunded to Plaintiff Hung Ha, FORTHWITH. Plaintiff may file a new Complaint with the accompanying required filing fee of $350.00 and serve Defendant(s) within the time-frame set forth pursuant to FRCP 4(m). (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2010) Modified on 3/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/18/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). |
Filing 8 AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 7/17/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009) Modified on 7/20/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). |
Filing 7 ORDER DISMISSING CASE without Prejudice. All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. All pending matters are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 7/15/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2009) Modified on 7/17/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). |
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.