Abdulkhalik v. City of San Diego et al
| 3:2008cv01515 |
| August 18, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Larry Alan Burns |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
69
ORDER: Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Plaintiffs' 55 Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Sur Reply. Based on the foregoing stated herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court also denies Plaintiff's ex parte application for leave to file a sur reply. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/25/2009. (leh) (jrl).
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER denying 58 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the City's motion for reconsideration. The city must comply with all orders in the Court's August 28th Order by 11/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 10/26/2009. (leh)(jrl).
|
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Abdulkhalik v. City of San Diego et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
