Doe et al v. Boland
| Jane Doe, Peter Lora, Jane Roe and Victoria Bloom |
| Dean Boland |
| 1:2007cv02787 |
| September 14, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| Dan Aaron Polster |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
137
Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment (Related Doc # 129 ). Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 12/13/11.(P,R)
|
|
Filing
116
Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Boland and awards minor plaintiffs $300,000 ($150,000 to each minor plaintiff). State law claims dismissed without prjudice. 108 Plaintiffs' Motion to strike denied as moot. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 10/20/11. (P,R) Modified on 10/20/2011 (P,R).
|
|
Filing
105
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying defendant's Motion to show cause (Related Doc # 101 ); denying Motion to strike (Related Doc # 102 ); denying Motion to strike (Related Doc # 103 ); denying Motion for sanctions (Related Doc # 103 ). Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
|
|
Filing
95
Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to strike (Related Doc # 93 ). Court ORDERS Boland to promptly (1) file, in accordance with Rule 5.1(a)(1)(A)(2), a notice of constitutional question articulating th e specific question(s) and identifying the paper(s) that raise it, and (2) serve the notice and paper(s) as set forth under the Rule on (a) the Attorney General of the United States and (b) the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. The Court observes that the present briefing schedule allows the Attorney General sufficient time to determine whether to make an appearance and oppose Bolands constitutional challenge. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 5/10/11.(P,R)
|
|
Filing
85
Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for partial summary judgment (Related Doc # 73 ); granting Defendant's Motion for summary judgment (Related Doc # 77 ); denying as moot Defendant's Motion to strike ( Related Doc # 81 ). The First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice. Because the only claims remaining are state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them; thus, the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/1/09.(P,R) Modified text on 9/2/2009 (B,B).
|
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 Ohio Northern 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.
