The United States of America v. Mednansky et al

Plaintiff: The United States of America
Defendant: David Mednansky and Martine Mednansky
Case Number: 3:2010cv01307
Filed: June 21, 2010
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: John A. Houston
Referring Judge: Louisa S Porter
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, and Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:2201
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 19, 2013 78 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 77 Motion for Relief from Void Judgment per Rule 60(b)(4), and Motion for Relief Due to Fraud, Misconduct, Mistake Deprivation of Due Process and Inconsistent Rulings Per Rule 60(b)(3),(b)(6). Defendants fail to explain why the gro unds raised in the present motion could not have been raised in any of their three previous motions for reconsideration, all filed after the Supreme Court issued the Sackett decision. Accordingly, the Court Denies Defendants' request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
May 14, 2012 54 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying Successive Motion for Reconsideration 53 . No further applications or motions seeking reconsideration of these issues are to be submitted for filing. If they are submitted, they will be summarily rejected and none will be entertained. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/10/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(jrd)
April 20, 2012 51 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/19/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(jrd)
May 18, 2011 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Dismissing Counterclaims. May 16, the date by which the Mednanskys were to have shown cause why their counterclaims are not moot, has passed. They have filed nothing attempting to show cause, nor have they sought additional time in which to do so. The Court must presume it lacks jurisdiction over the counterclaims. Because the Mednanskys have failed to rebut this presumption, and because they failed to obey the Court's March 8 order, see Civil Local Rule 83.1(a), their counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE but WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/18/11.(kaj)
May 6, 2011 40 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying Certification of Issues for Appeal; ORDER Denying Stay Pending Appeal; and Order Granting Equitable Relief. Defendants' request for a Rule 54(b) certification is denied as moot. Their request for a stay is denied without prejudice to any ruling by the Ninth Circuit. Their request for a 30-day stay is also denied. The Court finds the Defendants have failed to show cause as ordered why the order sought by the United States should not issue, and grants in part the unopposed ex parte application. United States law enforcement officers may use all reasonable force to enforce the Court's March 25, 2011 order at any time. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/6/2011. (jer) Modified on 5/6/2011 certified copy to USM (kaj).
March 8, 2011 30 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting Partial Summary Judgment: The United States' claim for eviction of the Mednanskys from Lot 7 of the Pine Creek Tract of the Cleveland National Forest is Granted. To the extent the United States seeks any payments, the motion is De nied, and these amounts remain to be determined later. Because it appears the Mednanskys counterclaims may now be moot, they are Ordered to Show Cause by filing a memorandum of points and authorities, not exceeding fifteen pages, no later than May 16, 2011. The page limit does not include any attached or lodged material. The United States, if it wishes, may file a reply subject to the same page limits no later than May 16, 2011. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/8/11. (rlu)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: The United States of America v. Mednansky et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: The United States of America
Represented By: Steve B Chu
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: David Mednansky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Martine Mednansky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?