Ojeda v. Scottsbluff, City of et al
Plaintiff: Stella M. Ojeda
Defendant: Scottsbluff, City of, Scottsbluff Police Department, Alex Moreno, Phil Eckerberg, Shawn McFarland, Phil Martindale and Kevin Spencer
Case Number: 4:2008cv03067
Filed: April 3, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Scotts Bluff
Presiding Judge: Richard G. Kopf
Presiding Judge: David L. Piester
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 104 JUDGMENT - Pursuant to the parties' stipulation for dismissal with prejudice (filing 103 ) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action is dismissed against all defendants with prejudice, each party to pay his, her or its own attorneys' fees and costs. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
September 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER granting 101 Motion to Extend. Defendant's unopposed motion to continue, (filing no. 101 ), is granted, and the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment is extended to November 2, 2009. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
September 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 99 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' motion for sanctions (filing 63 ) is denied. Defendant City of Scottsbluff's motion to strike (filing 80 ) is denied. Plaintiff's counsel is warned that future failure to comply with court rules and procedures may result in filings being stricken, the abandonment of positions as outlined in NECivR 7.0.1 or other sanctions. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
August 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 97 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The plaintiff's noticed non-party witness depositions are stayed pending the courts ruling on the defense motion for Rule 11 sanctions, (filing no. 63), and defense objection to plaintiffs notice of subpoenas to non-party w itnesses, (filing no. 82). The plaintiff shall not serve the subpoenas on the non-party witnesses, and as to any subpoenas that may be served, plaintiffs counsel shall promptly advise the witness served that the deposition has been stayed. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (CRZ)
August 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER - Plaintiff's response to the defendant's objections to plaintiff's notices to subpoena non-party witnesses, (filing no. 82 ), shall be filed on or before August 20, 2009. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
July 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 62 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: On or before 7/23/09 the parties shall jointly file a motion setting forth their proposed deadlines for continued progression of this case to trial, including deadlines for disclosing experts and their reports, and for completio n of discovery, along with a statement of when the case will be ready for trial. The planning conference scheduled before Magistrate Judge Piester on 10/2/09 is cancelled as ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Case Management Deadline set for 7/23/2009.) (SED)
June 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 60 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity. 1. Plaintiffs request for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (filing 56 ) is denied; 2. Plaintiff's § 1983 due process claim is dismis sed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff's request; 3. Plaintiff's § 1985 conspiracy claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff's request as to the individually-named defendants; and 4. Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity (filing 46 with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983 First Amendment claim and § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim is granted. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
February 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER - Plaintiff's motion (filing 54 ) requesting additional time in which to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 46 ) is granted; Plaintiff shall file her responsive brief and any evidentiary materials on or before February 27, 2009; Defendants shall file a reply brief and any evidentiary materials within ten (10) business days after Plaintiff files her responsive brief. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (JAB)
January 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER regarding 52 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's motion (filing 52 ) requesting additional time in which to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 46 ) is granted; Plaintiff shall file her responsive brief and any evidentiary materials on or before February 20, 2009; Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LKH)
January 5, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 51 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 49 Motion to Stay. Discovery in this case is stayed pending a ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Defendants' counsel shall contact the court and opposing counsel to schedule a planning conference with the court within ten (10) days after a ruling is filed on their pending summary judgment motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
November 25, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 45 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 37 Motion to Strike. The defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's request for a jury trial, filing no. 37 , is granted. The plaintiff's demand for a jury trial on her claims seeking equitable relie f against all the defendants, and her claims seeking legal relief against the City of Scottsbluff and defendants Alex Moreno, Phil Eckerberg, Shawn McFarland, Phil Martindale, and Kevin Spencer in their official capacities is stricken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
September 29, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER regarding 35 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. IT IS ORDERED:The motion of Daniel R. Carnahan to withdraw as counsel for defendants, filing 35 , is granted. The clerk's office is directed to update its records to reflect Mr. Carnahans new address as requested in the motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (LKL)
September 16, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER regarding motions. IT IS ORDERED: The parties' Joint Motion for Withdrawal of Defendants' Motion to Strike and for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint Instanter, filing 33 , is granted, and Defendants' motion to dismiss, filing 26 , is withdrawn. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filing 25 , is deemed amended instanter to strike the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (LKL)
September 8, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ORDER - 1. Defendants Unopposed Motion to Stay Rule 26 Requirements, filing 30 , is granted and the parties' Rule 26 planning conference report shall be filed within 30 days of resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss. 2. The joint motion of the parties, filing 31 , to withdraw Defendants' Motion to Strike is granted and the motion to strike, filing 28 , is withdrawn. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ojeda v. Scottsbluff, City of et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stella M. Ojeda
Represented By: Linda M. Cronin
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: Scottsbluff, City of
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: Scottsbluff Police Department
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: Alex Moreno
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: Phil Eckerberg
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: Shawn McFarland
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: Phil Martindale
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: Kevin Spencer
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?