Warnick v. Cooley et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 29, 2017
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 53 Motion to Dismiss Party. Daniel Herboldsheimer terminated. ; granting 54 Motion to Dismiss Party. Daniel Herboldsheimer terminated. ; granting 54 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to St ate a Claim ; granting 54 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; granting in part and Modifying in part 64 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Hall and Knighton under state law (Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, S ixth, and Seventh Causes of Action) are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs claims for defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action) against all County Defendants are also DI SMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs remaining claims against all County Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs amended complaint (Docket No. 28) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 3/29/17. (jlw)
|April 22, 2015
ORDER ADOPTING 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: granting 39 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; denying 32 Motion to Strike and 33 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 22 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff's amended complaint is allowed to stand and is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 4/22/15 (alt)
Access additional case information on PACER
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?