Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-1882 - Herrera et al v. California Highway Patrol


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-1882 - Herrera et al v. California Highway Patrol
January 27, 2016
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 01/26/16 ORDERING that the date for CHP to respond to complaint is EXTENDED to 02/29/16. (Benson, A)
February 24, 2016
PDF | More
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/23/2016 AMENDING the operative First Amended Complaint; ORDERING that the first cause of action for declaratory relief be removed from the complaint; ORDERING that the complaint's second cause of action for violation of civil rights remain in the case. (Michel, G.)
March 2, 2016
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/29/16 ORDERING that the deadline for the parties to confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and to prepare and submit to the Court a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan shall be 30 days after the Court rules on the CHP's pending motion to dismiss the operative first amended complaint or, alternatively, to stay this case, Dkt. Nos. 13 and 14.(Kastilahn, A)
February 14, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/13/2017 ORDERING that Defendant's 13 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' informal request for leave to amend is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file a formal motion for leave to amend within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order is filed. If Plaintiffs do not timely file their motion, the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further action by the Court. (Zignago, K.)
May 10, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/9/2017 DENYING 26 Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. In light of this order, and in conjunction with the Court's prior order granting CHP's motion to dismiss 25, this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED(Washington, S)