FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. et al v. WELTON et al
| PAULA ALMANZA, NICOLE ANAYA, LIZETH AZCARRAGA, JORGE CACERES, FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC., SARAHI GUADARRAMA and ROMARY VAZQUEZ |
| BURGER PROPERTY ASSURANCE LLC, JUAN ENRIQUEZ, HOOSIER COLLINS COMMERCIAL STRATEGIES LLC, SLB ACQUISITIONS LLC, SLB ASSETS II LLC, SLB ASSETS III LLC, SLB INVESTMENTS LLC, NATALIA VILLANUEVA and MARSHALL WELTON |
| 1:2018cv01098 |
| April 10, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Doris L. Pryor |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Fair Housing Act |
| 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
315
ORDER granting 304 Motion for Attorney Fees - The Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating that their requested fee was reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds that the adjusted attorneys' fee of $539,8 80.15, as calculated above, as well as the costs in the amount of $34,060.29, are reasonable for this case. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, 304 , is GRANTED and Defendants must pay a total of $573,940.44 in attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs as detailed in this Order. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/7/2020. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
250
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Motion for Protective Order. The Defendants' request to require Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants to obtain leave of court before issuing any further interrogatories or requests for production i s GRANTED. Notwithstanding this protection, Defendants shall respond to FHCCI's Interrogatories 90-91, 93 and the first two interrogatories contained in Interrogatory 94. The Defendants' request to stay net worth discovery of the Individual Defendants is DENIED. Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 75 and Request for Production 93 and 94 are OVERRULED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 6/10/2019. (CBU)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER - This matter involves thirteen plaintiffs, eleven defendants, and widespread allegations of improper and discriminatory conduct in the marketing and selling of derelict homes on a "rent-to-own" basis. [See generally Filing No. 9 .] Defendants counterclaim, alleging defamation and other state-law tort and contract claims. [Filing No. 32 at 33-52.] Pending before the Court are two summary judgment motions (one ripe and the other awaiting additional briefing) and a collate ral motion for additional discovery to respond to summary judgment. [Filing No. 33 ; Filing No. 65 ; Filing No. 72 .] This Order sets forth the Court's expectations for dispositive motions practice during the pendency of this matter. As ex plained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), [Filing No. 65 ]; DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 33 ]; and NOTIFIES Plaintiffs that they may e ither withdraw their Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, [Filing No. 72 ], or may stand on their motion, but file no additional summary judgment motions in this case. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(d), 65 , and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 33 , WITHOUT PREJUDICE to raising their arguments as part of a single summary judgment motion at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Consistent with the foregoing, the Cour t NOTIFIES Plaintiffs that they may withdraw their not-yet-ripe Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, 72 , and include the same arguments in a later, consolidated dispositive motion, or may stand on their filing and permit it to proceed to resolutio n. But Plaintiffs, like Defendants, will be entitled to just one summary judgment motion in this lawsuit. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to notify the Court whether they intend to withdraw their summary judgment motion on or before October 10, 2018. Finally, the Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect pro se Plaintiff Isaac Perez's last known address, as shown in the distribution below. (See Order). Copy to Isaac Perez via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/3/2018. (APD)
|
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 Southern 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.
