Falzone v. Licastro et al
| Paul E. Falzone |
| Richard Dolbow, Julie Kreiner, John M. Licastro, Dennis Sweet, Christopher McDonald, Gregory Barton and Thomas J. Neelon |
| 1:2010cv02918 |
| December 27, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| James S. Gwin |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
119
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/4/12. The Court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims, denies plaintiff's motions to dismiss the Village of Bretanahl's counterclaim and grants the Village's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim. Defendant Sweet's motion to dismiss and his motion to stay the case are denied as moot. Plaintiff Falzone's motion for leave to add witnesses for trial is denied as moot. (Related Docs. 32 , 53 , 64 , 69 , 97 , 98 , 101 , 112 , 118 ) (M,G)
|
|
Filing
71
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/7/11 granting Defendant Sweet's motion for protective order. Defendant Sweet need not respond to Plaintiff Falzone's pre-September 13, 2011 discovery requests. Plaintiff Falzone may submit discovery requests to Defendant Sweet in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's order of 9/13/11. (Related Doc. 67 ) (M,G)
|
|
Filing
63
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/13/11. The Court grants, in part, the Bratenahl Defendants' motion for protective order. Further the Court lifts the 8/2/11 stay of discovery as to Defendant Dennis Sweet who is directed to comply with plaintiff's discovery requests in the usual course. (Related Docs. 29 , 46 ) (M,G)
|
|
Filing
46
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/2/11. The Court grants Defendant Sweet's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of his motion to dismiss. As only Defendant Sweet makes the motion, the discovery stay will only govern discovery as to Sweet. If Plaintiff Falzone believes he needs discovery to respond to the motion, he must so move. (Related Doc. 33 ) (M,G)
|
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.
