White v. City of Cleveland et al
| Dalonte White |
| City of Cleveland, Thomas Shoulders, Michael Schade, Donato G Daugenti, Thomas J Harrigan, William C Tinsley, Joseph C O'Neill, David H Lam and John Doe |
| 1:2017cv01165 |
| June 5, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| Donald C. Nugent |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
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
272
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 191 , 193 , 195 , 197 , 199 ) are GRANTED as to White's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and DENIED as to White's clai ms under state law. White's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 205 ) is DENIED. The remainder of the case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, from which it was removed. Signed by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 12/23/2020. (S,SR)
|
|
Filing
269
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, Plainitff White's Request (Doc. No. 219) is DENIED AS MOOT, and Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 221) is DENIED. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 7/22/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
215
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiff Dalonte White's Motion to Lift Confidential Designations and Unseal the Depositions of David Lam, John Kubas, David Santiago, and the City of Cleveland (Doc. No . 212 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The photo lineups shall, in addition to redactions necessary to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, be redacted to prevent the disclosure of third parties' pictures and names, except for their initials. The CCH report shall remain under seal. White is directed to file public versions of the depositions of David Lam, John Kubas, David Santiago, and the City of Cleveland with redactions consistent with this opinion by June 5, 2020. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 5/29/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
201
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in this order, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 180 ) is DENIED. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 5/4/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
179
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiff White's Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 172 ) is GRANTED. White is directed to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint by the end of business on April 17 , 2020. Pleadings responsive to White's Second Amended Complaint are due by April 24, 2020. The deadlines related to the filing of dispositive motions previously set by the Court are extended fourteen days, such that dispositive motions are now due by May 4, 2020. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 4/16/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
158
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, motion of Defendant City Of Cleveland to strike Plaintiff's motion to show cause 152 is GRANTED and Plaintiff's show cause motion is stricken 150 . Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 2/19/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
131
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth in this order, Defendants' Motion to Compel is DENIED, and the City's Objections are OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART. Plaintiff is entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as noticed, except that questioning on Topics 6 and 7 shall be limited to 2014 to the present. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 10/25/2019. (L,Ja)
|
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.
