Lee v. Snohomish County
| Mark Jeffery Lee |
| Snohomish County |
| 2:2017cv00176 |
| February 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| James L. Robart |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
52
STIPULATION AND ORDER of Dismissal re parties' 51 Stipulated MOTION for Entry of Order of Dismissal. This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and fees. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER VACATING the remaining pretrial deadlines and trial date and REMOVING the County's 28 motion for summary judgment from the docket. The court further ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report no later than ten (10) days after the entry of this order. The report must update the court on the status of the settlement. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER granting 41 Stipulated Motion to File Documents Under Seal. It is ordered that 42 page 2 Exhibit K to the declaration of Marilyn Finsen and Exhibit H to the declaration of Rhea Reynolds in support of Defendant's 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment will remain under seal. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant Snohomish County's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the court DENIES the County's request to dismiss the case in its entirety; GRANTS Mr. Lee a time extension to eff ectuate proper service, which the court finds that Mr. Lee has accomplished (see Dkt. # 25 ); GRANTS the County's motion with respect to the claims filing statute and DISMISSES Mr. Lee's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false light, and age discrimination with prejudice; and GRANTS the County's motion with respect to Mr. Lee's contract violation claim and DISMISSES this claim with prejudice. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER directing attorney Rodney R. Moody to either (1) seek reinstatement to practice in the District pursuant to the Local Civil Rules, or (2) take necessary steps to ensure that Mr. Lee can retain new counsel or proceed pro se, as Mr. Lee chooses. No later than 10 days of the entry of this order, Mr. Moody must indicate on the docket in this case which of these actions he has taken, what steps he has taken to effectuate the action, and the status of the action. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: Rodney Moody via the USPS and via email
|
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 Washington Western 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: Lee v. Snohomish County | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark Jeffery Lee | |
| Represented By: | Rodney R Moody |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Snohomish County | |
| Represented By: | Steven J Bladek |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
