Valencia et al v. City of Springfield, Illinois
| Mary B. Valencia and Individual Advocacy Group, Inc. |
| City of Springfield, Illinois |
| 3:2016cv03331 |
| December 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Richard Mills |
| Tom Schanzle-Haskins |
| Housing/Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| 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
199
INJUNCTION entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on December 5, 2023, pursuant to the 198 Order. (KJC)
|
|
Filing
113
OPINION: The First Motion in Limine of Defendant City of Springfield to Bar Plaintiff United States of America's Disclosed Expert d/e 86 is DENIED with leave to refile in the event any inadmissible testimony is offered at trial. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 04/09/2020. (SKN, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
112
OPINION: The Motion of Defendant City of Springfield for Partial Summary Judgment on the issues of standing and damages (d/e 89 ) is DENIED. The Motion of Plaintiffs Individual Advocacy Group, Mary B. Valencia, as the Independent Administrator of t he Estate of A.D., and B.A. for Partial Summary Judgment as to the liability of Defendant City of Springfield [d/e 92] is GRANTED. The Motion of Defendant City of Springfield to Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion (d/e 97 ) is DENIED. SEE Written Opinion. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 3/16/2020. (ME, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
111
OPINION: The Motion of Plaintiff United States of America for Summary Judgment as to the liability of Defendant City of Springfield 91 is GRANTED.The Clerk will terminate the duplicative Motion for Summary Judgment 27 filed in Case Number 17-3278 . The Defendant City of Springfield's Motion for Summary Judgment 88 is DENIED. The Clerk will terminate the duplicative Motion for Summary Judgment 26 filed in Case Number 17-3278. Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, the City of Springfield shall submit a plan to remediate its violations of the Fair Housing Act. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 03/02/2020. (SKN, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
60
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 50 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part; Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 55 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
21
OPINION: Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 7 is allowed.The City of Springfield is hereby enjoined from instituting evictionproceedings against the Plaintiffs in order to permit continued operation of the three-person home for p ersons with disabilities at 2328 Noble Avenue, while this case is pending. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins for a scheduling conference. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 08/02/2017. (SKN, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
14
OPINION: Defendant's Motion to Proceed with Discovery Prior to a Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 is DENIED. The Defendant is Directed to file a response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injuncti on by May 16, 2017. The Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set before U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on May 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. is Canceled, pending resolution of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 05/08/2017. (SKN, ilcd)
|
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 Illinois Central 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.
