Thames et al v. City of Portland et al
| Columbia Bar and Grill Inc. and Donna Thames |
| Amy Archer, Jeffrey Bell, Mike Boyer, City of Portland, John Eckhart, Charles Hales, Shannon Hoffeditz, Mark Kruger, Merle Lindsey, David Luster, Steven Marks, Dan McNeal, Oregon Liquor Control Commission and Jason Tallmadge |
| 3:2016cv01634 |
| August 12, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Paul Papak |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
142
ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 134 . The Motion to Confirm Representation of Columbia Bar and Grill or to Dismiss 124 is Granted, and Plaintiff Columbia Bar & Grill is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 12/15/19 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 93 . OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike 72 is Denied to the extent that it addresses Paragraph 44. Otherwise, the Motion to Strike 72 is Granted. OLCC Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss 72 is Denied. City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 74 is also Denied. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this Order (or by 6/18/2018) to file a second amended complaint consistent with Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation regarding OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike. Signed on 6/7/18 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER: Adopting in Part and Declining in Part the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 53 as follows: City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike 20 is Granted as to Plaintiffs' Claim 2 - 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process. The motion is also Granted as to Plaintiffs' Claim 5 - First Amendment, to the extent premised on Plaintiffs' right to free association. City Defendants Ms. Archer and Ms. Hales are entitled to qualified immunity and are Dismissed from the case. Otherwise, the motion is Denied. OLCC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike 42 is Granted as to Plaintiffs' Claim 2 - 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process; Claim 5 - First Amendment, to the extent p remised on Plaintiffs' right to free association; Claim 12 - IIER; and Claim 13 - IIED. The motion is also Granted as to the following of Plaintiffs' claims against OLCC: Claim 9 - Assault, Claim 10 - Battery, and Claim 11 - False Arrest. Otherwise, the motion is Denied. Plaintiffs are Granted leave to amend. Even if Plaintiffs choose not to amend the dismissed claims, they must submit an amended complaint that reflects this Court's rulings as to City Defendants' and OLCC Defendants' motions. Plaintiffs' amended complaint is due within 10 days of the date below (or due by 10/13/2017). Signed on 10/3/17 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
|
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.
