Wu v. Jewell
Liming Wu |
Sally Jewell |
1:2014cv00150 |
February 18, 2014 |
US District Court for the District of New Mexico |
Albuquerque Office |
Santa Fe |
Karen B. Molzen |
Robert Hayes Scott |
Employment |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 139 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack DENYING 133 Notice of Appeal. (yc) |
Filing 132 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack, Denying 127 MOTION for Reconsideration. (bc) |
Filing 112 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack granting in part 83 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure To State A Claim And For Summary Judgment a nd Memorandum In Support and granting 94 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Complaint For Damages Under The Federal Tort Claims Act; It Is Further Ordered that the Court hereby rescinds the order of consolidation; all future filings shall be made in 17cv113, Plaintiff's only remaining lawsuit; It Is Further Ordered that Plaintiff shall file a comprehensive Fifth Amended Complaint as described herein no later than May 3, 2019. (jn) |
Filing 110 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack Denying 73 MOTION for Reconsideration re 67 Memorandum Opinion and Order (jjs) |
Filing 107 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER y Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack DENYING 58 MOTION to Set Aside 57 Order Dismissing Case; AND DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 65 MOTION to Set Aside. b (yc) |
Filing 88 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack re: 87 Notice by United States of Substitution of the United States for Defendants Sheila Mallory and Karen Grohman (jn) |
Filing 71 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack GRANTING (17cv113 RB-KRS)(40) PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT, Plaintiff will have through October 15, 2018 to file her final comprehensive amended complain t; Defendants' (22) MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum In Support is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's second and third amended complaints are STRICKEN for failure to obtain leave of court to file either complaint; Plaintiff's (32) is DENIED as moot. (jn) |
Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack; Court will consolidate Wu vs. Jewell No. 17-cv-113 MV/LF and Wu vs. Seidlitz 18-cv-813 SCY with this case Wu vs. Jewell 14-cv-150 RB/WPL; All future filings for any of the consolidated cases shall be filed in Wu vs. Jewell No. 14-cv-150 RB/WPL (jn) |
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 New Mexico 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
Search for this case: Wu v. Jewell | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Liming Wu | |
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: Sally Jewell | |
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.