Judith C. Herrera

“For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss FMLA Claims is denied.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Count V of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Imara Guerrero’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 38] is hereby GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

“Defendant Deputy Eby’s Motion To Dismiss [Doc. 60] is GRANTED”

“the Motion To Dismiss filed by Defendants Garcia, Ojeda, and Saenz [Doc. 62] is GRANTED”

“Defendant Sheriff Cobos’s Motion To Dismiss [Doc. 64] is GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.”

“Defendant Padilla’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 189) is GRANTED and Count IX is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Defendant Padilla’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim (Count IX) (ECF No. 118) is DENIED as MOOT because this Court has dismissed the claim on summary judgment.”

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Violation of his Weingarten Rights (Count VI and for Violation of the 14th Amendment (Count VII), filed January 12, 2018 (Doc. 50), is GRANTED”

“Defendant’s First Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Race Discrimination (Count I), filed on January 12, 2018 (Doc. 49), is GRANTED”

“Defendant’s Provisional Second Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Retaliation (Count III), Gender Discrimination (Count IV) and Hostile Work Environment (Count II/Harassment (Count V), filed January 16, 2018 (Doc. 52), is GRANTED.”

“the motion for summary judgment Defendants incorporated in their Martinez Report (Doc. 54) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Berkley V. Walker’s ‘Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support’ (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”

“Defendant Presbyterian’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Givens’s claims is GRANTED; (2) Defendant Presbyterian’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Martinez’s claims is DENIED”

“Defendant ARAMARK’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Givens’s claims is GRANTED; and (2) Defendant ARAMARK’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Martinez’s claims is DENIED.”