Snyder Computer Systems, Inc. v. LaHood et al
| Snyder Computer Systems, Inc. |
| Ray LaHood, United States Department of Transportation and Janet Napolitano |
| 2:2010cv00161 |
| February 22, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| JEFFERSON |
| Mark R. Abel |
| Edmund A Sargus |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s) |
| 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
80
ORDER: The Court CLARIFIES, as requested in Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement and Unopposed Motion for Indicative Ruling, that the 11/09/11 Opinion and Order was in no way intended, and should not be construed, as a finding on whether the filing of judicial forfeiture by the United States in the Western District of Washington was sufficiently timely to comply with due process obligations. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 12/04/2012. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER by the Court that if this case is remanded by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the Plaintiff's unopposed motion and proceed to clarify that the Opinion and Order of 11/09/11 was not intended as a finding on whether the filing of judicial forfeiture by the United States in the Western District of Washington was sufficiently timely to comply with due process obligations, which would be a matter for the district court in which that forfeiture is pending to determine provided it is properly raised as an issue before that court. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/20/2012. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
75
OPINION AND ORDER granting 68 the Federal Agencies' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as Moot. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 66 is dismissed and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 72 is denied as moot. This case is dismissed as moot. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/09/2011. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER denying as moot 58 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in light of the Amended Complaint filed 08/11/2011 66 . Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/19/2011. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER denying as moot 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply to Motion to Dismiss for the Limited Purpose of Supplying Controlling Authority. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 01/27/2011. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 the Government's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Claims One through Seven of the First Amended Complaint are dismissed. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/09/2010. (dh)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER granting 28 Government's Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 05/27/2010. (dh)
|
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 Southern 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.
