N.Y. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District et al
| N.Y. |
| San Ramon Valley Unified School District, San Ramon Valley High School, Rick Schmitt, Jason Reimann, Ruth Steele, Jamie Keith, Dearborn Ramos, Bernie Phelan, Janet Willford and Kerri Christman Gilbert |
| 4:2017cv03906 |
| July 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Contra Costa |
| Maxine M. Chesney |
| Nandor J. Vadas |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
172
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. All causes of action against defendant Willford are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 16, 2020. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2020)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LIMITED LEAVE TO AMEND. The motions are granted in part and denied in part. If N.Y. wishes to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, solely for purposes of amending the deficiencies identified, he shall do so no later than November 22, 2019. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 6, 2019. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2019)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY MARC H. RANDAZZA AND D. GILL SPERLEIN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF; EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE FACT DISCOVERY; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES. Marc J. Randazza and D. Gill Sperlein are relieved as counsel as record for plaintiff N.Y. Given the absence of an immediate substitution, plaintiff now proceeds pro se. The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended from December 24, 2018, to March 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 13, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2018)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW. Counsel for plaintiff are directed to file, no later than December 21, 2018, a declaration stating plaintiff's current address and his present age. As of December 21, 2018, or the date on which such declaration is filed, whichever is earlier, the Court will take the motion to withdraw under submission. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 10, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2018)
|
|
Filing
95
THIRD AMENDED PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER.Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 11/19/18. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2018)
|
|
Filing
82
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WILLFORD AND GILBERT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LIMITED LEAVE TO AMEND.The First Cause of Action is dismissed wit hout further leave to amend. The Third Cause of Action, to the extent alleged against Gilbert, is dismissed without further leave to amend. The Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed with leave to amend. To the extent Willford and Gilbert 9;s motion seeks an order dismissing the prayer for punitive damages as asserted against Willford, the motion is denied. If plaintiff wishes to file a Third Amended Complaint for purposes of curing the deficiencies with respect to the Fifth and/or Sixth Causes of Action, such pleading shall be filed no later than October 1, 2018. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 21, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2018)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WILLFORD AND GILBERTS MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LIMITED LEAVE TO AMEND. The First Cause of Action is dismissed without further leave to amend. The Third Cause of Action, to the extent alleged against Gilbert, is dismissed without further leave to amend. The Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed with leave to amend. To the extent Willford and Gilbert's motion se eks an order dismissing the prayer for punitive damages as asserted against Willford, the motion is denied. If plaintiff wishes to file a Third Amended Complaint for purposes of curing the deficiencies with respect to the Fifth and/or Sixth Causes of Action, such pleading shall be filed no later than October 1, 2016. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 14, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2018)
|
|
Filing
78
SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 8/13/2018. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND. The First, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed as to all defendants. To the extent alleged against the District, the Second and Fourth Causes of Action are dismissed. To the extent alleged against the District and Gilbert, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed. In all other respects, the motions are denied. If plaintiff wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint for purposes of curing any of the deficiencies identified, such pleading shall be filed no later than June 20, 2016. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 1, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2018)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 5, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2018)
|
|
Filing
40
PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/30/2017. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017)
|
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.
