Haddad v. State of Cal.
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) ORDERING THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BE FILED FORTHWITH; AND (3) ORDERING DEFENDANT SCOTT E. WALL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 23 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
TIMLIN, District Judge.
The Court has read and considered Defendants State of California and Scott E. Wall’s (“Wall”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff Joseph Had-dad’s (“Haddad”) opposition, and Defendants’ reply papers. Based on such consideration, the Court concludes as follows:
I
BACKGROUND…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cole v. Doe 1 Thru 2 Officers of Emeryville Police DepartmentDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2005
- Dible v. SchollDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2006
- Dolney v. LahammerDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1999
- Guerrero v. GatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2000
- Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. AndersonDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.