Morrow et al v. City of San Diego, et al
Plaintiff: Floyd L. Morrow and Marlene Morrow
Defendant: San Diego, City of, Mandel E. Himelstein and DOES 1-100
Case Number: 3:2011cv01497
Filed: July 6, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Irma E. Gonzalez
Presiding Judge: William V. Gallo
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 148 ORDER denying City of San Diego's 146 Motion to Dismiss and 146 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/5/2017. (jah)
March 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 141 ORDER granting 137 Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Re Special Interrogatories. Plaintiffs shall provide defendant with full and complete responses to defendant's Special Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 14 within 15 days of the date this Order is filed. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is denied at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 3/24/2017. (jah)
December 4, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER Denying 80 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend; Denying 84 Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3; and Denying 95 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/4/2013. (srm)(jrd)
September 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER granting City of San Diego's 51 Motion for Abstention. Court denies Dft's motion for abstention on basis of the Younger doctrine and grants Dft's motion for abstention on the basis of the Pullman doctrine. Court remands the ca se to San Diego County Superior Court. Court retains jurisdiction Plaintiffs' federal claim, if Plaintiffs', in the state court proceeding make an England "reservation", England 375 U.S. at 421, and such claim is not mooted in the state court proceeding. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/25/2012. (Certified copy of this Order mailed to San Diego County Superior Court) (jah)
July 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Amend and Supplement Third Amended Complaint. Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their existing claims, but denies Plaintiffs leave to add a new claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pla may file a fourth amended complaint deleting the IIED claim w/in 14 days of the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 7/6/2012. (jah)
January 11, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant City of San Diego's 24 Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. Court: 1. declines to dismiss the 1st cause of action for waste of taxpayer funds, 2. dismisses with prejudice 2nd cause of action to extent it is based on violation of Plaintiffs' due process rights, 3. declines to dismiss 2nd cause of action to extent it is based on violations of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, 4. dismisses without prejudice 3rd cause of action for inverse condemnation as unripe, 5. dismisses with prejudice 4th cause of action for invalidation, 6. declines to dismiss 5th cause of action for writ of mandate, and 7. delciens to dismiss 6th cause of action for writ of prohibition. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/11/2012. (jah)
October 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER granting Defendant City of San Diego's 9 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the excessive fines clause and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 20 calendar days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 10/18/2011. (jah)
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: Morrow et al 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 ]
Plaintiff: Floyd L. Morrow
Represented By: Malinda Dickenson
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marlene Morrow
Represented By: Malinda Dickenson
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: San Diego, City of
Represented By: Alexis Lalli Jodlowski
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mandel E. Himelstein
Represented By: Timothy J. Harris
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DOES 1-100
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?