Mglej v. Garfield County et al
Matthew T. Mglej |
Garfield County, Garfield County Sheriff's Office, Garfield County Jail and Raymond Gardner |
2:2013cv00713 |
July 29, 2013 |
US District Court for the District of Utah |
Central Office |
Garfield |
Brooke C. Wells |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 264 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES -granting 250 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded $314,077.00 in attorneys' fees, $14,679.59 in expenses, and $6,342.92 in costs, for a total award of $335,099.51. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 6/7/22. (jrj) |
Filing 221 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE FOR EXCLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES DUE TO THE SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE denying 182 Motion in Limine; Motions terminated: 182 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support for Exclusion of Psychological Damages Due to the Spoliation of Evidence filed by Raymond Gardner. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/27/21. (jrj) |
Filing 148 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-granting in part and denying in part 111 Motion for Summary Judgment ; ( Form due by 1/28/2019. Status Conference set for 1/31/2019 at 02:30 PM in Rm 8.100 before Judge Clark Waddoups.); Motions term inated: 111 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Second) filed by Raymond Gardner, Garfield County Sheriff's Office, Garfield County, Garfield County Jail. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 1/10/19. (jmr) |
Filing 125 MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 108 Motion to Disqualify Judge. ; granting 115 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 115 Motion to Stay ; granting 120 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney J. Tayler Fox and Carolyn Mont gomery withdrawn from case for Plaintiff. ; granting 120 Motion to Stay. Based on the withdrawal of counsel and the Courts decision to appoint new pro bono counsel, the Court will also grant the request to stay briefing on Defendants Motion for S ummary Judgment.20 The Court understands Defendants frustrations with the delays that have occurred in this case. However, new counsel will need sufficient time to review discovery and respond to Defendants Motion. Therefore, the Court will allow Pla intiffs newly appointed counsel to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment within 90 days of their appearance.The Clerk of Court is directed to locate new pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff. New counsel shall have 90 days from the date of their appearance to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/17/16. (jlw) |
Filing 61 MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 57 Motion to Quash; denying 57 Motion to Modify Defendants Motion for Deposition and Request for Documents; granting 59 Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff; granting 59 Motion to Expedite Deposition of Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 12/11/2014. (jwt) |
Filing 42 MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-granting 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and DISMISSES all of Plaintiff Matthew Mglejs state law claims (Claims Six through Thirteen). Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-104 and § 63G-7-601, the court awards attorneys fees and costs to Defendants for defense against the state law causes of action. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 7/1/14. (jmr) |
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 Utah 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.