Martinez v. Hubbard et al
| Marcos A. Martinez |
| William Hubbard, Bernard Hicks, Robert Colburn, Donald Caisey, Scott Roby, Paul Hayward, Carlos Martinez, Bernard Doyle, Stephen M. Borbee, David Williams, Steven Dodd, Thomas Settipani, City of Boston Police Department and Edward Davis |
| 1:2009cv11431 |
| August 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Suffolk |
| Douglas P. Woodlock |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights 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
130
Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered providing a detailed explanation for denial of Martinezs motion to strike and for sanctions [Dkt. No. 105] and Defendants motion to strike Martinezs untimely brief [Dkt. No. 118] and granting De fendants motions for summary judgment [Dkt. No. 93] and for sanctions [Dkt. No. 114]. With respect to sanctions, plaintiffs counsel, Messrs. Fischer and Brodie, whom are found to be jointly and severally liable for the sanctionable conduct, are here by ORDERED to pay attorneys fees to Defendants in the amount of $1,380.00. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Defendants including an award of $1,380.00 in attorneys fees to Defendants, on the basis of this Memorandum. (Woodlock, Douglas)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
