1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. COPELAND v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
 

COPELAND v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Case No. 12-cv-04286-JST.

CAROLYN COPELAND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

August 26, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Carolyn Copeland, individually, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Nisenbaum , Law Offices of John L. Burris.

Joe Pervoe, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Nisenbaum , Law Offices of John L. Burris.

County of Alameda, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot, Richard William Osman , Bertrand, Fox & Elliot & Thomas F. Bertrand , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Gregory J. Ahern, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot, Richard William Osman , Bertrand, Fox & Elliot & Thomas F. Bertrand , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Ryan Swetavage, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Miguel Ibarra, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Lonala Kaho'Ali'l, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Andrea Nederostek, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Travis Higgins, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Derek Meza, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Christopher Haendel, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Alberto-Andres Holmes, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

John Townsley, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

Thomas Nelson, an individual, Defendant, represented by Michael Charles Wenzel , Bertrand Fox & Elliot.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: ECF No. 61.

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

In this action for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related claims, Defendants move to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute this action and have failed to comply with this Court's orders. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases