Campbell v. Department of Human Services
| Christopher Campbell |
| Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii, Doe Persons 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Roe Non-Profit Corporations 1-10 and Roe Governmental Entities 1-10 |
| 1:2017cv00138 |
| March 29, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Hawaii |
| KENNETH J. MANSFIELD |
| SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 754 |
| Plaintiff |
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
123
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment re 94 96 . Campbell's motion for summary judgment is denied, and DHS's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants and to close this case. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 4/23/2019. (cib)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER Granting Defendant Department Of Human Services, State of Hawaii's Motion For Partial Judgment On The Pleadings re 67 . "The Eleventh Amendment bars Campbells state law claims against DHS. This court therefore grants DHS's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Campbell's state law claims against DHS are dismissed with prejudice, and this matter will proceed on his remaining Title VII claim." Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/2/2018. (cib, )
|
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 Hawaii 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.
