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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

76-162 - (PC) Hedrick et al. v. Grant, et al.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
76-162 - (PC) Hedrick et al. v. Grant, et al.
June 11, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/11/2013 ORDERING it is unclear whether CRLA's response should be considered a duly noticed withdrawal motion to which an opposition or statement of non-opposition is required; CRLA's withdrawal request is hereby noticed for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on 7/1/2013; Motion to Terminate Consent Decree hearing RESET for 7/29/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Waggoner, D)
June 24, 2013
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/21/13 ORDERING the effective date of the automatic stay under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3626(e)(2)(A) is hereby extended until August 11, 2013. (Becknal, R)
March 3, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/28/14 DENYING 123 Motion for Extension. The conclusory motion filed on 2/10/14 is denied since it fails to precisely specify the grounds for the motion, the standard applicable to such motion, and that under the applicable standard the relief sought should be granted. (Meuleman, A)
March 7, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST to Schedule Hearing signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/7/14. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
March 14, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/13/2014 DENYING 126 Request to Reopen Discovery. (Michel, G)
March 26, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/26/2014 ORDERING that the parties are provided an opportunity to brief whether the consent decree, or any portion thereof, should be modified and/or terminated under Rule 60(b) by no later than 3/31/2014. (Donati, J)
April 2, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/2/14 DENYING 95 Motion to Terminate Consent Decree. 134 Request to file under seal is DENIED. Status Conference set for 4/8/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. If feasible, parties shall file a Joint Status Report. (Manzer, C)
September 8, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/5/2014 ORDERING 139 Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED in PART. The total attorney' fees award is: $7,826.60. 141 (Reader, L)
January 9, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/8/15 DENYING 154 Request to Authorize the Expenditure to Hire an Expert. (Meuleman, A)
November 4, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/3/2016 ORDERING that the hearing on Plaintiffs' 168 Motion to enforce consent decree is Reset for 2/1/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; Defendants' Opposition due by 1/18/2017; and Plaintiffs' reply shall be due by 1/25/2017. (Reader, L)
December 1, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/30/16 ORDERING that 174 is GRANTED; the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion shall be held on January 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants Opposition shall be due to be filed on January 11, 2017. Plaintiffs Reply shall be due to be filed on January 18, 2017.(Dillon, M)
January 23, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/20/17 ORDERING that the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Consent Decree and for Further Remedial Orders shall be held on February 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' Reply shall be due to be filed on February 8, 2017.(Dillon, M)
February 8, 2017
PDF | More
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/7/17. (Dillon, M)
February 10, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/9/2017 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART 163 & 182 Motions to Seal. Plaintiffs' 10/24/2016 Request to seal the Stark Declaration and all attached exhibits is GRANTED-IN-PART such that the unredacted declaration and exhibits will be sealed and redacted versions of such will be publicly filed. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a redacted version within 14 day and send the unredacted version to [email protected] Plaintiffs 10/24/2016 Request to seal the Stewart declaration and all attached exhibits is GRANTED-IN-PART such that the unredacted declaration and exhibits will be sealed and a redacted version of such will be publicly filed. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to send the unredacted version to the court at the email listed. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties may submit objections to the public filing of the redacted version of the Stewart declaration. If no objections are filed, the Clerk shall file the redacted Stewart declaration on the public docket. Defendants' 1/18/2017 Request to seal the Barnes declaration is GRANTED-IN-PART such that the unredacted declaration will be sealed and a redacted version of such will be publicly filed. Defendants are DIRECTED to file a redacted version within 14 day and send the unredacted version the court at the email listed. (Donati, J.)
April 12, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/12/2017 ORDERING the tour of the Yuba County Jail is set for 4/28/2017, at 10:00 a.m.; and any filing concerning the jail tour shall be submitted to the chambers of the undersigned no later than seven days prior to the jail tour. (cc: KJN)(Yin, K)
August 23, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/23/17 ORDERING in light of the ongoing settlement negotiations and conferences, the Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively terminate these pending motions 168, 173, and 182. The parties may renew the motions should the ongoing settlement negotiations fail to entirely resolve the case. (Plummer, M)
January 3, 2018
PDF | More
effort. (Mena-Sanchez, L)ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/3/18 ORDERING that the action will not be reassigned as a related case because it has not been shown that assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings in judicial