Biggar v. Oregon Board of Optometry et al
| David Biggar |
| Molly S. Cardenal, Kim Clark, Ingrid Gandar, Lori Lindley, Derek Louie, Jessica Lynch, Oregon Board of Optometry, Oregon Department of Justice, Shelly Sneed, Stephen Tronnes, Douglas J. Walker and Catherine C. Webber |
| 3:2017cv00714 |
| May 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Michael W. Mosman |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities Act - 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
102
Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated above, I GRANT in part the OBO Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 93 . I GRANT summary judgment to OBO Defendants on the federal due process and ADA claims (Claims 1 and 2). Because Claim 1 was t he only claim alleged against the individual Board members, this decision in effect dismisses Defendants Webber, Lynch, Cardenal, Tronnes, Louie, and Walker from this case. With only state law claims remaining against the Board and Defendants Sneed and Gander, I REMAND this case to Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 6/26/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
|
|
Filing
96
OPINION AND ORDER: I GRANT in part and DENY in part Dr. Miller's Motion for Attorney Fees 76 and Supplemental Motion for Fees and Costs 89 . I GRANT $22,104.39 in attorney fees and DENY the Motions as to costs. Signed on 5/16/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
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.
