Pham et al v. City of San Jose et al
| Vinh Huu Pham and Lan Thi Do |
| City of San Jose, Brian Jeffrey and Matthew Blackerby |
| 5:2011cv01526 |
| March 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| 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
58
ORDER granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on September 30, 2013. (ejdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER VACATING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The Court finds that a conference would not be productive at this time. Accordingly, the Conference is VACATED. The Court shall set a Preliminary Pretrial Conference, if necessary, in its forthcoming order on summary judgment. ***9/20/2013 PTC Deadlines terminated. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/17/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2013)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Having reviewed the parties joint statement, the court finds that a pretrial conference is premature at this time. Accordingly, the Preliminary Pretrial Conference scheduled for July 5, 2013, i s CONTINUED to September 20, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall file an updated Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement on or before September 10, 2013.***7/5/2013 Deadlines terminated. [ Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/1/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2013)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE re 47 Pretrial Conference Statement filed by Brian Jeffrey, City of San Jose, Matthew Blackerby. Updated Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement due by 6/25/2013. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 7/5/2013 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/14/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2013)
|
|
Filing
46
Order Granting 45 Stipulation Deadline to Disclose Experts; Modifying Briefing Schedule. No later than TEN (10) days after the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the parties shall file a stipulation or administrative motion to reset the expert disclosure deadlines. Signed by Hon. Edward J. Davila on 2/27/2013.(ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER GRANTING 27 STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES. Fact Discovery cutoff 10/1/2012. Last Date for Filing Dispositive Motions due by 12/3/2012. Expert Discovery cutoff 2/3/2013. Preliminary Pretrial Conference statement due 11/20 /2012. Preliminar Pretrial Conference set for 11/30/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Motions terminated: 27 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Vinh Huu Pham. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/10/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012)
|
|
Filing
19
STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING Request to Modify Deadline to Hold ENE Session re 18 Stipulation. The Court hereby extends the deadline to hold an Early Neutral Evaluation in this case to January 20, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/9/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Early Neutral Evaluation re 15 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/13/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)
|
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.
