Valenzuela v. Coleman et al
| Juan Valenzuela |
| Karl Coleman, Ligeia Craven and Anthony Wilkerson |
| 1:2018cv00329 |
| February 9, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Denver |
| Scott T. Varholak |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
183
ORDER: Defendant's Renewed Motion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) Or, In the Alternative, Motion for New Trial or Alteration or Amendment of the Judgment Under Fed R. Civ. P. 59 150 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Interest [15 1] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs request for prejudgment interest on $15,000 in compensatory damages for economic costs. It is DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees [ 149] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order., Motions terminated: 151 MOTION for Order to of Prejudgment Interest filed by Juan Valenzuela, 149 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Juan Valenzuela, 150 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) and/or New Trial pursuant to Rule 59 filed by Karl Coleman. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/7/2022. (sphil, )
|
|
Filing
169
ORDER re: 157 Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Without Filing a Supersedeas Bond is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendant's unopposed request in the alternative to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $ ;300,000. ORDERED that Defendant must post a supersedeas bond on or before May 4, 2022 in the amount of $300,000 in order to be granted a stay pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/13/2022. (sphil, )
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 107 the parties' Joint Motion Motion to Clarify. It is GRANTED insofar as the Court clarifies the reasons for the October 2020 Order. It is DENIED insofar as the Court finds that no modification of that Order is warranted, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/17/2021.(evana, )
|
|
Filing
95
OPINION and ORDER by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/15/2020. ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#70) is GRANTED IN PART. No party having requested issuance of a partial judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), at the conc lusion of the remaining proceedings, judgment shall enter in favor of all Defendants except Officer Coleman, on all claims except Mr. Valenzuela's claim malicious prosecution-style claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion is DENIED IN PA RT insofar as the remaining claim against Officer Coleman will proceed to trial. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions of David D. Dusenbury (#71) and Motion for Leave to Amend Dusenbury Declaration (#83) are DENIED AS MO OT. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions of DMV Investigator Scott Greminger (#72) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access to Summary Judgment Exhibits (#91) and Defendants' Unopp osed Motion to Restrict Access to Unredacted Exhibit Attached to Motion for Summary Judgment (#73) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. The Clerk of the Court shall lift the provisional restrictions on Docket #89-2 and 89-5. (sphil, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
