Valenti v. Hartford City Indiana

Valenti v. Hartford City Indiana

Plaintiff:	Brian Valenti
Defendant:	Hartford City Indiana
Case Number:	1:2015cv00063
Filed:	March 6, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office:	Fort Wayne Office
County:	Blackford
Presiding Judge:	Susan L Collins
Presiding Judge:	Theresa L Springmann
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Defendant

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 1, 2016	Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 34 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and DENIES 37 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Hartford City Ordinance 2008-01 violates Indiana Constitution Art. 1, § 24, as ap plied to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is enjoined from enforcing it against the Plaintiff. The Pre-Amendment Ordinance definition of loiter violated due process. By separate order, the Court will set a telephone status conference to set a trial to determine the Plaintiff's individual damages. The amended definition of loiter also violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Defendant is enjoined from imposing fines for any violation of the loitering prohibition contained in Ordinance 2008-1. The Court will enter a final judgment outlining the appropriate relief after resolution of the entire case. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/1/2016. (tc)
October 3, 2016	Filing 43 OPINION AND ORDER re 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Brian Valenti. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent set forth as follows: (1) The Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2) and is defined as: all persons who currently, or will in the future , live in, work in, or visit Hartford City, Indiana, and who are, or will be, Sex Offenders as defined in Amended Ordinance 2008-01; (2) In consideration of the work counsel has done in identifying and investigating potential claims in the action, hi s knowledge of applicable constitutional law, and the resources that counsel will commit to representing the Class, the Court appoints Attorney Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana, as Class Counsel; (3) Because the class is being certified under Rule 23 (b)(2), the Court does not direct notice and an opportunity to opt out. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); Fontana v. Elrod, 826 F.2d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that classes certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are primarily designed for injunctive and declaratory relief and, when employed in this fashion, do not require notice nor an opportunity to opt out of the class). Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 10/3/16. (cer)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 1, 2016

Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 34 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and DENIES 37 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Hartford City Ordinance 2008-01 violates Indiana Constitution Art. 1, § 24, as ap plied to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is enjoined from enforcing it against the Plaintiff. The Pre-Amendment Ordinance definition of loiter violated due process. By separate order, the Court will set a telephone status conference to set a trial to determine the Plaintiff's individual damages. The amended definition of loiter also violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Defendant is enjoined from imposing fines for any violation of the loitering prohibition contained in Ordinance 2008-1. The Court will enter a final judgment outlining the appropriate relief after resolution of the entire case. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/1/2016. (tc)

October 3, 2016

Filing 43 OPINION AND ORDER re 5 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Brian Valenti. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent set forth as follows: (1) The Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2) and is defined as: all persons who currently, or will in the future , live in, work in, or visit Hartford City, Indiana, and who are, or will be, Sex Offenders as defined in Amended Ordinance 2008-01; (2) In consideration of the work counsel has done in identifying and investigating potential claims in the action, hi s knowledge of applicable constitutional law, and the resources that counsel will commit to representing the Class, the Court appoints Attorney Kenneth J. Falk, ACLU of Indiana, as Class Counsel; (3) Because the class is being certified under Rule 23 (b)(2), the Court does not direct notice and an opportunity to opt out. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); Fontana v. Elrod, 826 F.2d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that classes certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are primarily designed for injunctive and declaratory relief and, when employed in this fashion, do not require notice nor an opportunity to opt out of the class). Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 10/3/16. (cer)

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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Valenti v. Hartford City Indiana
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Brian Valenti
Represented By:	Kelly R Eskew
Represented By:	Kenneth J Falk
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: Hartford City Indiana
Represented By:	Linda A Polley
Represented By:	Eric M Wilkins
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?