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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-1662 - Myrtle Street Flats LLC, v. City of Vallejo et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-1662 - Myrtle Street Flats LLC, v. City of Vallejo et al
October 16, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/16/2017 ORDERING Defendant Emergency Construction Services, Inc.'s answer to 1 Complaint is due on 11/14/2017 or twenty-one (21) days after the filing of an amended complaint. (Washington, S)
October 24, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/23/2017 CONTINUING the deadline to complete the joint status report to 11/21/2017. (Hunt, G)
November 14, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/13/17, ORDERING that Defendant Emergency Construction Services, Inc.'s answer to Plaintiff's Complaint is due on 12/14/17 or 21 days after the filing of an amended complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
November 27, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/22/2017 ORDERING Pursuant to Local Rule 271, the parties hereby agree to submit the entitled action to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. (Reader, L)
November 28, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/27/2017 GRANTING-IN-PART 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. During the pendency of this litigation, Defendant City of Vallejo is ORDERED AND ENJOINED to remove the Emergency Summary Abatement issued concerning 624 Marin on May 31, 2017, to restoreutility service to 624 Marin. The remainder of Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED. Defendants 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Individual Defendants Vincent Sproete, Jack McArthur, Daniel E. Keen, Lonell Butler, Robert Chambers, and Michelle Hightower are hereby DISMISSED from this action. (Hunt, G)
February 2, 2018
PDF | More
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/1/2018. (York, M)
March 29, 2018
PDF | More
STATUS PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 03/29/2018 ORDERING that all Dispositive Motions filed by 05/07/2019 and heard 06/04/2019 at 1:30 p.m.; Discovery completed by 03/29/2019; joint mid-litigation statements due 14 days prior to close of discovery; Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 01/25/2019 with any supplemental/rebuttal expert disclosures due by 02/15/2019; Final Pretrial Conference set for 07/12/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez with a joint pretrial statement due 7 days prior; Jury Trial set for 08/26/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 7 days. (Fabillaran, J)
September 14, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/14/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendant City of Vallejo shall promptly make further efforts to confirm with appropriate persons/custodians that all responsive text messages, voicemails, and call logs have been produced. Within 21 days of this order, the City of Vallejo shall either make a supplemental production of such items or provide plaintiff with a firm representation that no such responsive text messages, voicemails, or call logs exist; Within 21 days of this order, defendant City of Vallejo shall provide plaintiff with a supplemental, itemized privilege log for all pre-litigation documents (i.e., documents that were generated prior to the initiation of this lawsuit) that were withheld based on the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege; All of plaintiff's remaining requests are DENIED without prejudice, subject to further good faith meet-and-confer efforts by the parties as discussed in greater detail at the hearing. The parties are cautioned that failure to properly meet and confer prior to bringing a discovery dispute before the court may result in the imposition of sanctions on the offending party or parties. (Becknal, R)