Greisen v. Hanken et al
Plaintiff: Doug Greisen
Defendant: City of Scappoose, John Does and Jon Hanken
Case Number: 3:2014cv01399
Filed: August 29, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: Michael H. Simon
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 141 Opinion and Order - Defendant Hanken's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motions for New Trial and Remittitur (ECF 120 ) are denied. Signed on 5/12/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
December 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 42 Opinion and Order - The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26 ). The motion is denied with respect to Greisen's First Amendment retaliation claim against Hanken. The motion is granted with respect to all Greisen's state law claims, and those claims are dismissed. Signed on 12/29/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
March 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 24 Opinion and Order - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Scappoose are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Jon Hanken alleging a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. Signed on 3/23/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
January 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 16 Opinion and Order - The Court GRANTS without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13 ) all claims against Defendant Hanken and further DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Scappoose and the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff has leave to amend his complaint within 30 days. Signed on 1/5/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Greisen v. Hanken et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Scappoose
Represented By: Blake H. Fry
Represented By: Karen M. Vickers
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Does
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jon Hanken
Represented By: Blake H. Fry
Represented By: Karen M. Vickers
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Doug Greisen
Represented By: William A. Drew
Represented By: John D. Ostrander
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?