Arredondo et al v. Flores et al
| 5:2005cv00191 |
| August 29, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Laredo Office |
| Micaela Alvarez |
| Adriana Arce-Flores |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 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
159
OPINION AND ORDER granting 123 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified. (dmorales)
|
|
Filing
153
OPINION AND ORDER. Defense counsel SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT within thirty (30) days of this order a breakdown of the expenses incurred and the fees billed with regards to each issue. (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified. (dmorales)
|
|
Filing
144
OPINION AND ORDER accepting the Magistrate Judge's dispositions in part, and rejecting them in part. (Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified. (dmorales) Modified type on 8/25/2008 (dmorales).
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 122 Motion for Sanctions; and 136 Amended Motion for Sanctions.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Adriana Arce-Flores) Parties notified. (dmorales)
|
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 Texas Southern 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
| Search for this case: Arredondo et al v. Flores et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
