Jordan v. State of Oregon Department of Human Services et al
| Rozalia Jordan |
| State of Oregon Department of Human Services, Washington County Disability Aging and Veterans Services, Joe Easton, Sean Rusaw and Vickie Shaffer |
| 3:2007cv00940 |
| June 26, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Multnomah |
| Ancer L. Haggerty |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
206
ORDER: Motion for Attorney Fees 185 and Bill of Costs 193 are granted in part. Plaintiff's requests for taxable costs, 193 , non-taxable expenses, and paralegal fees totaling $77,459.12 are granted. Plaintiff's request fo r attorney fees 185 is granted in part: plaintiff's counsel shall file an amended motion for a fee award reflecting the hourly reductions and the applicable hourly rates determined above. This amended motion must be filed within twenty-one da ys of this Order's issuance. Defendants are granted five days from the filing of the amended motion to file objections as to the calculations performed in the amended motion (whether the proper rates were applied to the appropriate number of hours). Alternatively, counsel are invited to stipulate to a final unopposed amended motion. All other pending motions or objections are denied as moot Signed on 12/15/10 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (jlr)
|
|
Filing
140
OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 107 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Because plaintiff is unable to demonstrate an causal link between defendants and the decision to r equire plaintiff to reapply for her WPN, defendants' motion is GRANTED as to all defendants on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim related to re-application. Defendants' motion is GRANTED for Bellish and Easton as to plainti ff's selective prosecution claim, First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim, and malicious prosecution claims. Defendants' motion is DENIED as to plaintiff's remaining First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim, equal protection claims, substantive due process claim, and malicious prosecution claims as discussed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 07/21/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (pvh)
|
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 Oregon 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.
