Brenes et al vs Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
| Ricardo Brenes and Lydia Vasquez-Brenes |
| Jeffrey Chamberlin, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sean Miller and Theodore Snodgrass |
| 2:2012cv01635 |
| September 18, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Cam Ferenbach |
| James C. Mahan |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
96
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 84 plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court's 2/16/ 17, 84 order be, and the same hereby is, AMENDED, to include the following sentence: This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs shall submit their rule 60(a) motion to this court within seven (7) days of the date of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall indicate whether their motion is unopposed. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER. The court ISSUES an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3) that 90 plaintiff's unopposed motion raises a substantial issue. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/19/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sean Miller Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER that 72 Motion for order certifying defendants' interlocutory appeal as frivolous is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 66 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/19/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER Denying 68 Ricardo Brenes' Motion to Strike. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 70 the Department's Motion for Leave is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brenes' opposition to 66 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department� 39;s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is due Monday, November 10, 2014, and that Las Metropolitan Police Department's reply is due Thursday, November 20, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/27/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 50 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/10/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER Denying as moot 28 Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/6/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER Denying in Part and Denying as Unripe in Part 27 Defendants' Motion to Compel. Defendants' 35 Motion to Extend Time is Granted. The discovery cutoff date is extended until 1/15/2014. Plaintiffs have until 11/18/2013 to seek leave to file an amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/17/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
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 Nevada 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.
