Hanavan v. City of Arvada, Colorado et al
| Richard Hanavan |
| City of Arvada, Colorado, Ian Stodghill and Ian (I) Stodghill |
| 1:2025cv02436 |
| August 6, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Timothy P O'Hara |
| Regina M Rodriguez |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 27
MINUTE ORDER. For good cause shown and noting that it is unopposed, Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [ECF #25 ] is granted. The Court modifies Section 9 of the Scheduling Order at ECF #20 as follows: Affirmative Expert Witness Disclosure: May 15, 2026; Rebuttal Witness Disclosure: June 26, 2026; Discovery Cut-Off: August 14, 2026; Dispositive Motion Notice: Deadline August 24, 2026. By Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 1/28/2026.(ggill, )
|
|
Filing 26
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #25 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #20 Scheduling Order, filed by Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) Stodghill.Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 1/27/2026. Text Only Entry (rmrja)
|
| Filing 25 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify #20 Scheduling Order, by Defendants Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) Stodghill. (Carruthers, Jacob) |
|
Filing 24
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara on 1/16/2026. (eluce, )
|
|
Filing 23
MINUTE ORDER granting #21 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara on 1/16/2026. For good cause shown, the Parties Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order [ECF 21] is granted. The Court will enter the Parties proposed Protective Order separately.(eluce, )
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #21 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by City of Arvada, Colorado. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 1/15/2026. Text Only Entry (rmrja)
|
| Filing 21 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant City of Arvada, Colorado. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Justus, Kylie) |
|
Filing 20
SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery Cut-off: April 30, 2026; Dispositive Motion Notice Deadline: May 11, 2026; Affirmative Experts: February 14, 2026; Rebuttal Experts: March 30, 2026. By Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 11/21/2025. (ggill, )
|
| Filing 19 MINUTE ENTRY for Scheduling Conference held on 11/20/2025 before Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara. FTR: C402. (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 18 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Richard Hanavan. (Lane, David) |
|
Filing 17
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 11/12/2025. This matter comes before this Court upon the telephonic request by counsel for Defendant Stodghill to appear remotely at the November 20, 2025 Scheduling Conference. Although this Court prefers in-person attendance, this Court will grant the request. To connect to the courtroom remotely via video teleconference, counsel for Defendant Stodghill shall use the attached Cisco Meeting App Instructions. (ggill, )
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Christopher William Brophy on behalf of Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) StodghillAttorney Christopher William Brophy added to party Ian Stodghill(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher William Brophy added to party Ian (I) Stodghill(pty:dft) (Brophy, Christopher) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew Bradford Clauss on behalf of Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) Stodghill (Clauss, Andrew) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jacob W. Carruthers on behalf of Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) StodghillAttorney Jacob W. Carruthers added to party Ian Stodghill(pty:dft), Attorney Jacob W. Carruthers added to party Ian (I) Stodghill(pty:dft) (Carruthers, Jacob) |
| Filing 13 ANSWER to #2 Complaint, Attorney Andrew Bradford Clauss added to party Ian Stodghill(pty:dft), Attorney Andrew Bradford Clauss added to party Ian (I) Stodghill(pty:dft) by Ian Stodghill, Ian (I) Stodghill.(Clauss, Andrew) |
| Filing 12 ANSWER to #2 Complaint, by City of Arvada, Colorado.(Justus, Kylie) |
| Filing 11 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Defendant City of Arvada, Colorado All parties do not consent.. (Justus, Kylie) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Padraic Michael Emerine on behalf of City of Arvada, ColoradoAttorney Padraic Michael Emerine added to party City of Arvada, Colorado(pty:dft) (Emerine, Padraic) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Kylie T Justus on behalf of City of Arvada, ColoradoAttorney Kylie T Justus added to party City of Arvada, Colorado(pty:dft) (Justus, Kylie) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Reid Robertson Allison on behalf of Richard HanavanAttorney Reid Robertson Allison added to party Richard Hanavan(pty:pla) (Allison, Reid) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS REQUEST as to City of Arvada, Colorado and Officer Ian Stodghill re #2 Complaint, by Plaintiff Richard Hanavan. (Attachments: #1 Summons)(Lane, David) |
|
Filing 6
MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 8/25/2025. Pursuant to the Order of Reference, this Court will hold the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling Conference on November 20, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom C-402, on the fourth floor of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse located at 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. This is an in-person proceeding. No later than seven days before the Scheduling Conference, the Parties shall (1) file their Proposed Scheduling Order onto the case docket sheet and (2) submit the proposed Scheduling Order in Word format by joint email, copying all Parties, to Chambers at #o'[email protected]. (ggill, )
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions, and (5) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. SO ORDERED by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 8/7/2025. Text Only Entry (rmrja)
|
| Filing 4 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). No Summons Issued. (eguth, ) |
| Filing 3 Case assigned to Judge Regina M. Rodriguez and drawn to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. Text Only Entry (eguth, ) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against City of Arvada, Colorado, Officer Ian Stodghill (Filing fee $ 405,Receipt Number ACODC-10483950)Attorney David A. Lane added to party Richard Hanavan(pty:pla), filed by Richard Hanavan. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lane, David) |
| Filing 1 Administrative Notice: No initiating document. Attorney contacted with instructions to file the initiating document within 24 hours. (Text Only Entry) (eluce, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
