Hunt v. City of Portland et al
| Lindsay K. Hunt |
| City of Portland, William Hubner, Joseph Schilling, Eric Hendricks, Bryan Parman, Judy Brumfield, Leslie Pintarich and Quency Ho |
| 3:2008cv00802 |
| July 3, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Clackamas |
| John V. Acosta |
| Insurance |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
198
OPINION and ORDER - The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant City of Portland's Cost Bill 187 and awards the City $9,537.14 in total costs. Dated this 10th day of August, 2011, by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
183
JUDGMENT - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be, and is, entered as follows:(1) For the City and against Hunt on Hunt's claims of gender discrimination under OR. REV. STAT. 659A.030; and wrongful discharge; (2) For the individual defendants and against Hunt on Hunt's claim of intentional interference with economic relations; (3) For all defendants and against Hunt on Hunt's claims of negligence; violation of 42 U.S.c. § 1983 based on deprivation of the right of freedom of sp eech, denial of substantive due process, denial of equal protection, and conspiracy to deprive her of those rights; and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 based on conspiracy to deprive her of the right of freedom ofspeech, substantive due process, a nd equal protection, and to discriminate against her because of her gender; (4) For the City and against Hunt on Hunt's whistleblower claim under OR. REV. STAT. 659A.230; and (5) For the City and against Hunt on Hunt's whistleblower claim under OR. REv. STAT. 659A.203.Dated this 16th day of June, 2011, by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
|
Filing
152
ORDER - Dr. Klecan's PPD opinion is excluded, to the extent it relates to liability issues. Paragraph 4 of Dr. Klecan's IME report also is excluded, in its entirety, and must be redacted from the final version of the exhibit. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of May, 2011, by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (see attached entire 9-page document for further details) (peg)
|
|
Filing
111
OPINON AND ORDER - Hunt's Motion 93 for Reconsideration is DENIED. Dated this 24th day of September, 2010, by US Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
|
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.
