Hubbard v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
| Brent Hubbard |
| Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Zachary Piekarski |
| 2:2021cv02037 |
| November 11, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Daniel J Albregts |
| Richard F Boulware |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2-2: In accordance with 28 USC 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website - #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. AO 85 Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service.) (no image attached) (KF) |
Filing 9
SCHEDULING ORDER granting #8 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 6/3/2022. Motions due by 7/1/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/1/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 12/28/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)
|
| Filing 8 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Brent Hubbard. (Cottle, Robert) |
| Filing 7 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Zachary Piekarski. (Freeman, Robert) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Zachary Piekarski. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Freeman, Robert) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to #1 Complaint,, filed by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Zachary Piekarski. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 1/21/2022.(Freeman, Robert) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Zachary Piekarski. (DRS) |
| Filing 3 STANDING ORDER. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Judge Boulware's Chambers Practices, which are posted on the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada public website, may also be accessed directly via this hyperlink: #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) |
| Case randomly assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. (DRS) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Brent Hubbard. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Cottle, Robert) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0978-6696485) by Brent Hubbard. Proof of service due by 2/9/2022. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, #3 Summons Piekarski) (Cottle, Robert) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
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 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.
