FARVARDIN v. SROMOVSKY et al
| MOHAMED FARVARDIN |
| JOHN SROMOVSKY, MICHAEL SANTOS, STEVEN B. RANCK and FRANK NOONAN |
| 2:2012cv06680 |
| November 29, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| CYNTHIA M. RUFE |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
45
ADJUDICATION AND ORDER THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF MOHAMED FARVARDIN AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER FRANK NOONAN. PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT PROPOSED PROTOCOLS FOR IMPRO VED TROOPER TRAINING AND ADDRESSING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING POLICE CONDUCT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. IF THE PARTIES WISH TO ATTEMPT TO MEDIATE A PROTOCOL, THEY MAY AT ANY TIME, ASK THE COURT TO REFER THE CASE TO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS FOR MEDIATION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 12/15/14. 12/16/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT NOONAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR LACK OF CASE OR CONTROVERSY [#32] IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON OR BEFORE 11/7/14. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/21/14. 10/22/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
