Thomson v. Torrance Police Department

Date

Filing Party

Document Description

11/18/2014

Court

Order Denying Appellant’s Request to Lift Stay and Remand Action

11/12/2014AppellantAppellant’s Request to Lift Stay and Remand Action
7/1/2014CourtTerminated Appellee Torrance Police Department in 12-56236 [9153038] (BJB)
7/1/2014CourtOrder Dismissing Appellee Torrance Police Department
6/30/2014AppellantStipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal as to Torrance Police Department with Prejudice
2/18/2014CourtOrder Staying Case Pending Outcome of Peruta v. County of San Diego
3/15/2013AppelleeAppellees Citation of Supplemental Authority re Peterson v. Martinez
3/15/2013AppellantAppellant’s Citation of Supplemental Authority
1/14/2013CourtReceived 7 paper copies of Reply brief [17] filed by Robert Thomson.
1/11/2013CourtFiled Appellees paper copies of supplemental excerpts of record [15] in 2 volumes.
1/11/2013CourtReceived 7 paper copies of Answering brief [16] filed by Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.
1/11/2013CourtReceived 7 paper copies of Answering brief [14] filed by Torrance Police Department.
1/9/2013CourtFiled clerk order: The reply brief [17] submitted by Robert Thomson is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: gray. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF.
1/9/2013CourtFiled clerk order: The answering brief [14] submitted by Torrance Police Department is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF. The Court has reviewed the joint supplemental excerpts of record [15]. Within 7 days of this order, appellees are ordered to file 4 copies of the supplemental excerpts in paper format, with a white cover. The paper copies must be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rules 30-1.6.
1/8/2013CourtFiled clerk order: The answering brief [16] submitted by Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF.
1/8/2013Appellee Appellees Torrance Police Department Notice of Errata Re Filing of Answering Brief
1/8/2013Appellant Appellants’ Reply Brief
1/8/2013Appellee Appellee’s Brief of The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
1/8/2013Appellee Appellees Torrance Police Department’s and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s Joint Supplemental Excerpts of Record
1/8/2013Appellee Appellee Torrance Police Department’s Answering Brief
 9/17/2012CourtCase rejected from Circuit Mediation Program.
8/25/2012 AppellantFiled (ECF) Appellant Robert Thomson Correspondence: Request to consolidate and expedite.
 7/17/2012CourtFiled clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CAG): The appellant’s motion to consolidate and expedite the above captioned appeals is denied. The appellees’ motions for an extension of time in which to file the answering brief in No. 12-55115 are granted. The answering briefs are due October 1, 2012. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the last-served answering brief. The current briefing schedule in No. 12-56236 continues to govern that appeal.
 7/12/2012AppelleeFiled (ECF) Appellee Torrance Police Department Mediation Questionnaire.
 7/10/2012CourtReceived 7 paper copies of Opening brief [4] filed by Robert Thomson
 7/10/2012 CourtFiled clerk order: The opening brief [4] submitted by Robert Thomson is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: blue. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate ECF.
 7/9/2012 AppellantFiled Appellant Robert Thomson excerpts of record in 1 volume.
 7/5/2012AppellantMotion to Consolidate Cases; Advance Answer Dates and Opposition to Request for Extension of Time
 7/5/2012CourtAdded attorney Jonathan Birdt for Robert Thomson, in case 12-56236
7/5/2012AppellantAppellants’ Opening Brief
7/5/2012 AppellantFiled (ECF) Appellant Robert Thomson Mediation Questionnaire.
7/5/2012 AppellantFiled (ECF) notice of appearance of Jonathan Wesley Birdt for Appellant Robert Thomson.
7/5/2012CourtDOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/12/2012. Transcript ordered by 08/02/2012. Transcript due 10/31/2012. Appellant Robert Thomson opening brief due 12/10/2012. Appellees Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Torrance Police Department answering brief due 01/09/2013. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.
 7/5/2012 CourtNOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 12-56236, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 72 as to Plaintiff Robert Thomson.
 7/3/2012 AppellantNotice of Appeal
 7/2/2012CourtJudgment In Favor of Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Torrance Police Department
 7/2/2012CourtMINUTES OF (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 34; Order GRANTING Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment 36; Order GRANTING Torrance Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment 38 by Judge S. James Otero. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTS LASD’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS TPD’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
 6/22/2012 DefendantJoint Request for Decision on Motions for Summary Judgment
 6/15/2012 PlaintiffRequest for ruling on submitted matter filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson re: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
3/5/2012PlaintiffSupplemental Reply Brief Re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/16/2012CourtMINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: The parties are advised that the MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Complaint filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson 34, the MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Complaintfiled by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department 36 and the MOTION for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Torrance Police Department38, scheduled for hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012, are taken under submission. Accordingly, the hearing date is vacated. Order will issue.
2/10/2012 DefendantLASD Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Reply to Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/10/2012 DefendantObjections to Plaintiff’s Evidence in Opposition to LASD Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/10/2012 DefendantReply In Support of Defendant LASD’s Motion for Summary Judgment Partial Summary Judgment
2/10/12DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Evidentiary Objections to Evidence Cited In Plaintiff’s Reply Brief Re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/10/2012DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Lawrence Mudgett
2/10/2012DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Torrance Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/6/2012 PlaintiffReply Brief Re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
2/6/2012DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Facts
2/6/2012DefendantDeclaration of Ajit Singh Thind In Support of Defendant Torrance Police Department’s Motion Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
 2/6/2012 DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Opposition to Plaintiff Robert Thomson’s Motion for Summary Judgment
 1/30/2012DefendantNotice of Lodging of Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts & Conclusions of Law; Evidence In Support Thereof
 1/30/12DefendantDefendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
 1/20/2012DefendantLASD Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Relating Cases
1/19/2012 PlaintiffOpposition to Request to Relate Cases
1/19/2012DefendantAmended Notice of Related Cases by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
 1/18/2012DefendantNotice of Related Cases by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department_Birdt v. Beck Case
1/18/2012 DefendantNotice of Related Cases by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
1/9/2012PlaintiffDeclaration of Lawrence Mudgett LAPD Retired In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and In Opposition to Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment
 1/9/2012PlaintiffOpposition to Motions for Summary Judgment by LASD & TPD; Declaration of Lawrence Mudgett
 1/6/2012DefendantNOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Della D Thompson-Bell counsel for Defendant Torrance Police Department. Changing address to 3031 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503. Adding Della Thompson-Bell as attorney as counsel of record for Torrance Police Department for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by Defendant Torrance Police Department.
 1/4/2012CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Torrance Police Motion Related Document 42. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Lodging. Other error(s) with document(s): suggestion re attachments which were the lodged order, statement etc, should be labeled correspondingly, instead of, as exhibit A, B and C. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so.
1/3/2012 CourtMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court Strikes and vacates the Minute Order 32 setting Scheduling Conference on 2/6/12, as issuedin error.
 1/3/2012DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Notice of Lodging
1/3/2012  DefendantDeclaration of Chief of Police John Neu In Support of Defendant Torrance Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)
1/3/2012 DefendantDeclaration of Ajit Singh Thind In Support of Defendant Torrance Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)
1/3/2012DefendantMemorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendant Torrance Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)
1/3/2012DefendantPlaintiffs’ Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
 12/23/2011PlaintiffsPlaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts Lodged Concurrently With Motion for Summary Judgment
 12/23/2011DefendantDefendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Notice of Motion & Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support Thereof
 12/22/2011CourtMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero:The Court continues Strikes Defendants Objections to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Request for Dismissal 27. Request for dismissal should be filed as a formal motion to dismiss.
12/17/2011PlaintiffPlaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motionn for Summary Judgment
12/7/2011 DefendantDefendants Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Departments’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Damages
 12/7/2011CourtMINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge S. James Otero : Scheduling Conference set for 2/6/12 8:30 AM; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/23/12 ; in order to assist counsel, court has included a schedule form for pretrial dates to be completed by counsel and submitted in conjunction with their rule 26(f) report; if case is part of ADR program, counsel must confer and jointly complete ADR Pilot Program Questionnaire and to file it concurrently with the Joint Rule 26(f) report; plaintiff counsel directed to give notice of scheduling conference to all parties.
 12/7/2011DefendantNotice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Torrance Police Department, identifying Robert Thomson, Jonathan Birdt, Torrance Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, City of Torrance.
 12/7/2011CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Defendant Torrance Police Department Answer to Complaint (Discovery)  The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so.
12/6/2011 DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
 12/6/2011PlaintiffPlaintiffs’ Response to Objection
12/5/2011DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and Request for Dismissal
 12/5/2011 DefendantDefendant Torrance Police Department’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and Request for Dismissal
 11/22/2011 PlaintiffSecond Amended Compliant
11/18/2011CourtORDER by Judge S. James Otero: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Amended Document (Non-Motion), pdf is an amended complaint, for the following reasons: wrong event and wrong procedure;Per G.O. 10-07, Attorneys are NOT TO E-FILE INITIATING DOCUMENTS, but to MANUALLY FILE IT WITH CIVIL INTAKE. AFTERWHICH, EMAIL WITHIN 24 HOURS the conformed filed stamped PDF image to :CivilIntakeCourtDocs-LA@cacd.uscourts.gov
11/17/2011CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Document (Non-Motion). The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event and incorrect procedure selected. pdf is an initiating document, the second amended complaint. Per G.O. 10-07, Attorneys are NOT TO E-FILE INITIATING DOCUMENTS*, but to MANUALLY FILE IT WITH CIVIL INTAKE. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so
11/15/2011PlaintiffAMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson. Second Amended Complaint filed pursuant to order
 11/15/2011CourtMINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiff is Ordered to refile the Second Amended Complaint by not later than November 21, 2011 incompliance with the Courts Electronic case filing system. Failure to comply shall result in dismissal of this action. (lc) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
 11/1/2011CourtORDER by Judge S. James Otero: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Amended Document (Non-Motion) (an amended complaint), for the following reasons: wrong event and wrong procedure.Per G.O. 10-07, Attorneys are NOT TO E-FILE INITIATING DOCUMENTS*, but to MANUALLY FILE IT WITH CIVIL INTAKE. AFTERWHICH, EMAIL WITHIN 24 HOURS the conformed filed stamped PDF image to :CivilIntakeCourtDocs-LA@cacd.uscourts.gov
11/1/2011CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Document (Non-Motion). PDF is an initiating document, a Second Amended Complaint. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event and Incorrect procedure selected. Per G.O. 10-07, Attorneys are NOT TO E-FILE INITIATING DOCUMENTS, but to MANUALLY FILE IT WITH CIVIL INTAKE. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so
 10/31/2011PlaintiffSecond Amended Complaint
 10/24/2011CourtMINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by October 31, 2011. Motion for summaryjudgment shall be filed by January 3, 2012. Hearing will be set on Monday, February 27, 2012 10:00 a.m.Court Recorder: CS 10/24/11
 10/11/2011CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan found under Pretrial and Trial Documents. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so
 10/7/2011PlaintiffJoint Status Report
10/7/2011PlaintiffJOINT ADR PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE
 8/30/2011DefendantDefendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Departments’ Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Damages
8/30/2011CourtMINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge S. James Otero: Scheduling Conference set for 10/24/2011 at 08:30 AM; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/11/2011; in order to assist counsel, court has included a schedule form for pretrial dates to be completed by counsel and submitted in conjunction with their rule 26(f) report; if case is part of ADR program, counsel must confer and jointly complete ADR Pilot Program Questionnaire and to file it concurrently with the Joint Rule 26(f) report; plaintiff counsel directed to give notice of scheduling conference to all parties
 8/29/2011 DefendantAnswer of Defendant Torrance Police Department to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
8/24/2011 CourtOrder Extending Time to Respond to Initial Complaint
8/19/2011DefendantDefendant Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, identifying Robert Thomson, Jonathan Birdt, Torrance Police Department
8/19/2011 DefendantSTIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Torrance Police Department answer now due 9/9/2011, re Amended Document (Non-Motion)(Attachments: #Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Respond to Initial Complaint by Not More Than 30 Days (L.R. 8-3)
8/3/2011CourtNOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Document (Non-Motion). The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Amended Complaint. Other error(s) with document(s): Amended document, is an initiating Amended Complaint. Initiating documents are to be manually filed with Civil Intake. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so
 8/3/2011PlaintiffPROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson, upon Defendant Torrance Police Department served on 8/2/2011, answer due 8/23/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon V. Padila- Desk Officer in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned
 8/1/2011PlaintiffPROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson, upon Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department served on 8/1/2011, answer due 8/22/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Lashawn Tillman in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned
 8/1/2011 CourtInitial Standing Order For Cases Assigned to Judges S. James Otero
7/29/2011PlaintiffFirst Amended Complaint
7/26/2011CourtNOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
7/26/2011PlaintiffCERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomson
7/26/2011Court21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint – (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Torrance Police Department
7/26/2011Plaintiff Complaint