Holdner v. Coba et al
Defendant: Katy Coba and Dick Pederson
503)233-5128 (fax: William F. Holdner
Case Number: 3:2015cv02039
Filed: October 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: John V. Acosta
Nature of Suit: Agriculture Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 2, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 76 OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' Motion 63 to Dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2018, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (peg)
November 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 58 OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' motion 47 for attorney fees is GRANTED, in part. Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees under Section 1988 in the amount of $13,723.80. DATED this 9th day of November, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy of this opinion and order mailed to plaintiff) (peg)
August 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 56 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiff's motion 54 regarding review of magistrate decision is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 31st day of August, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)
August 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 50 OPINION and ORDER - The proper route of appeal of the court's Order and Judgment is to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Holdner's motion/appeal 49 is procedurally invalid and is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22nd day of August, 2016, by United States Ordered by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy of this document mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)
August 8, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 45 AMENDED OPINION and ORDER - DATED this 8th day of August, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)
August 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 43 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 36 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)
June 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 35 OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' motion 12 to dismiss is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of June, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (copy of this opinion and order mailed to plaintiff this date) (peg)
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: Holdner v. Coba et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Katy Coba
Represented By: G. Frank Hammond
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dick Pederson
Represented By: G. Frank Hammond
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
503)233-5128 (fax: William F. Holdner
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 [ 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?