University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill DR-CA-0033
Docket / Court 3:05-cv-01660-J-WMC ( S.D. Cal. )
Additional Docket(s) 08-55867  [ 08-55867 ]
08-55946  [ 08-55946 ]
09-55327  [ 09-55327 ]
09-55425  [ 09-55425 ]
3:06-cv-02671  [ 06-2671 ]
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Case Summary
On Aug. 22, 2005, a paraplegic individual who uses a wheelchair sued Chipotle, alleging that two of the defendant's restaurants did not provide full and equal access to customers in wheelchairs.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that when he had visited two Chipotle restaurants, ... read more >
On Aug. 22, 2005, a paraplegic individual who uses a wheelchair sued Chipotle, alleging that two of the defendant's restaurants did not provide full and equal access to customers in wheelchairs.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that when he had visited two Chipotle restaurants, one in Encinitas and one in San Diego, 44-inch high walls in front of the food preparation area obstructed his view, and thus he was denied full and equal access as non-disabled people have the opportunity to view foods available for selection and the construction of their food. He also alleged that there were structural barriers at the entrance to the restaurants, dining tables, parking lots, and restrooms, making them inaccessible to those in wheelchairs, in violation of (1) the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12102; (2) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504 (as amended 29 U.S.C. § 794); (3) the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as California Civil Code §§ 51, 52, and 54.1, 54.3, and 55; and (4) other statutory measures which refer to the protection of the rights of "physically disabled persons." The plaintiff sought an injunction ordering the defendants to provide full and equal access (by removing architectural barriers), statutory damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendant filed cross-complaints against the owners and operators of the properties on which the restaurants are located. The defendant also completed modifications to the restaurants to address the alleged lack of compliance with the ADA by Oct. 5, 2006.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the defendant moved to dismiss the case or in the alternative, to consolidate it with Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Case No. 3:06-cv-02671, a lawsuit filed on Dec. 6, 2006 by the same plaintiff, involving the same defendant and questions of law, this time as a putative class action.

On Mar. 20, 2007, Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. for the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern California, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case and granted their motion to consolidate for purposes of discovery only and leaving open the question of consolidation for trial.

Meanwhile, on Feb. 23, 2007, the defendant had implemented a written nationwide "Customers with Disabilities" policy ("the Policy"), and formally began training its employees on the policy between March and May 2007. Among other things, the Policy required managers to greet disabled customers and ask them whether they required accommodations, and instructed managers and crew that efficiency was secondary to ensuring a positive experience for disabled customers.

On Apr. 16, 2007, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief under the ADA were moot because the defendant had modified the restaurants to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"), including adoption and implementation of the effective nationwide Policy.

On June 14, 2007, the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant's food-preparation counters complied with state and federal accessibility laws and thus denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant had argued that its Policy that required its staff to offer suitable accommodations for customers with disabilities (including, for example: (1) showing samples of the food to the customers in soufflé cups, (2) offering customers an opportunity to see and even sample food at a table in the dining area, (3) describing foods and food preparation processes to customers if they wished, or (4) any combination of above accommodations that was requested or appropriate) provided "equivalent facilitation" under Section 7.2(2)(iii) of the ADA.

As for parking, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's ADA claims, since the defendant cured the defects in both parking lots and only injunctive relief was available under the ADA. On the state law claims, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's because it was undisputed that parking at both restaurants previously violated the ADAAG and therefore, the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act (DPA).

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his claim that the tables at both restaurants violated the ADA because these claims were not part of the Complaint or any timely amendment to the Complaint.

The court also granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's claims relating to the entrances at the San Diego restaurant and the bathrooms at both restaurants.

The court denied motions to reconsider by both parties. 2007 WL 2456223 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007).

On Sept. 6, 2007, the defendant moved to consolidate cases for trial. At this time, the individual case was already ready for trial, and the class action was still in the formative stages. On Sept. 7, 2007, the Court found that consolidation for purposes of trial was not merited because the potential for delay and prejudice outweighed any savings of time or effort. 2007 WL 2669531 (Sept. 7, 2007). The cases remained consolidated for discovery purposes.

A four-day bench trial was held in late November 2007 and early December to determine the following issues: (1) whether the defendant’s prior practice of accommodating customers with disabilities constituted equivalent facilitation; (2) whether the Policy constituted equivalent facilitation; (3) whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction requiring the defendant to lower the wall in front of the restaurants’ food preparation counters; and (4) the amount of damages, if any, that the plaintiff is entitled to under the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA) based on his visits to the restaurants.

On Jan. 10, 2008, Judge Jones concluded that the defendant's prior practice of informally accommodating customers had been insufficient to comply with the ADA, but that the Policy was sufficient. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction requiring the defendant to lower the wall, but that the plaintiff was entitled to $5,000 in damages for the occasions on which he encountered barriers to his entrance into the restaurants. 2008 WL 111052 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008).

On Apr. 21, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend findings of facts and for additional findings of fact. Later that month or in May 2008, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the defendant cross-appealed.

On Feb. 6, 2009, Judge Jones awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiff in the amount of $136,537.83, less than a quarter of the $550,651.33 in fees and costs the plaintiff had sought, and ordered the parties to pay their own costs. The plaintiff appealed, and on May 15, 2009, Judge Jones ordered a stay regarding attorneys' fees pending the decision of the Court of Appeals. 2009 WL 1390811 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2009). During this period, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz replaced Judge Jones as the district judge assigned to the case.

After a hearing on Nov. 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision that the Policy was compliant with the ADA, finding that the Policy was not equivalent because the “substitute experience” for disabled customers lacked the customers’ personal participation in the selection and preparation of the food that the full “Chipotle Experience” furnished and, therefore, violated the ADA. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine the scope of injunctive relief necessary to remedy the plaintiff's inability to view the food preparation counters.

On Nov. 18, 2010, the Ninth Circuit awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal to the plaintiff, and referred the determination of the appropriate amount of fees to the court’s special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter L. Shaw.

On Nov. 29, 2010, Judge Moskowitz entered judgment against the defendant for violation of the ADA. The district court declined to enter injunctive relief, as the defendant represented that its food-preparation counters at all of the defendant's restaurants in California, including the two restaurants at issue in this case, had been lowered to a suitable height that made them visible to wheelchair-bound customers. Because the defendant had not yet furnished evidence of these modifications or that the modifications would be permanent, the court ordered that limited discovery and briefing take place. Judge Moskowitz referred the question of additional damages to the magistrate judge for a settlement conference. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to more than the $136,357.83 in attorneys' fees awarded in the original district court action, but would wait to determine the amount until the other issues were resolved.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, on Apr. 22, 2011, and for attorneys' fees, on Apr. 29, 2011.

The plaintiff died on May 9, 2011, and on May 20, 2011, his widow and successor in interest to the claim filed a motion to substitute the plaintiff, and the motion was granted.

On Mar. 21, 2012, Judge Moskowitz granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The plaintiff's death rendered moot any claim for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA, thus the court denied the requested injunction requiring the defendant to maintain the current heights of the walls at the food preparation areas.

Regarding damages, California Civil Code § 54.3 entitled a CDPA plaintiff to statutory minimum damages award of $1,000 for "each offense" established by the plaintiff. Upon determining that the defendant's unwritten policy constituted a violation of the ADA (and thus the CDPA as well) and that the original plaintiff had made five "bona fide" visits to the defendant's restaurants while that policy was in effect, the district court granted the plaintiff's request for $5,000 in statutory damages for each of his "bona fide" visits to the restaurant. Previously, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit had vacated the damages award and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the plaintiff sought an additional $3,000 in damages because the original plaintiff had made three additional visits for the purposes of gathering evidence for this litigation. Here, the district court denied the plaintiff's request for $3,000 in additional damages, finding that these litigation-related visits should not be considered for the purposes of assessing damages, as he admitted in his deposition that his goal during the visits was to have bad experiences, and "allowing § 54.3 statutory damages for visits made with the express intention of advancing a CDPA plaintiff's position in litigation would enable CDPA plaintiffs essentially to write their own damages check." 2012 WL 12845619 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012).

Last, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees without prejudice, finding that it was premature.

On May 2, 2012, the plaintiff entered another motion for attorneys’ fees. On July 17, 2012, Judge Moskowitz granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion. The court granted the plaintiff an award of $545,079.05 in attorneys' fees and costs (in addition to the $5,000 in statutory damages). The plaintiff filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit for attorneys' fees and costs and was awarded an additional $353,469.95 in attorneys’ fees and expenses related to the appeals work that took place in 2008-2010.

As of January 22, 2014, the case appears to be closed.

Eric Weiler - 06/07/2010
Matt Ramirez - 08/12/2016
Elizabeth Greiter - 02/01/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Restaurant
Disability
Mobility impairment
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Barrier Removal
Bathrooms
Parking
Reasonable Accommodations
Reasonable Modifications
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
State law
Defendant(s) Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Plaintiff Description A paraplegic individual who uses a wheelchair
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Attorneys fees
Damages
Source of Relief Litigation
Case Ongoing No reason to think so
Case Listing DR-CA-0034 : Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill (S.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Chipotle Grill Victim of Legal Shakedown Artists
http://nlpc.org
Date: 2010
By: Carl Horowitz (National Legal & Policy Center)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
9th Cir. 08-55867 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
DR-CA-0033-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/28/2008
Source: Westlaw
9th Cir. 09-55946 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
DR-CA-0033-9002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/11/2008
Source: Westlaw
9th Cir. 09-55327 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
DR-CA-0033-9003.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/05/2009
Source: Westlaw
9th Cir. 09-55425 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
DR-CA-0033-9004.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2009
Source: Westlaw
3:05−cv−01660 (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/22/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Civil Complaint (2005 WL 2665517)
DR-CA-0033-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/22/2005
Source: Westlaw
Answer To Complaint (2005 WL 3143844)
DR-CA-0033-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/03/2005
Source: Westlaw
Cross Claim Of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Against Carl Kakcher Enterprises, Inc. And El Camino Plaza Associates, A California Joint Venture (2006 WL 435155)
DR-CA-0033-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/30/2006
Source: Westlaw
Cross-Defendant Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.'s Answer To Cross-Claim Of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (2006 WL 1435936)
DR-CA-0033-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/30/2006
Source: Westlaw
Cross-Defendant Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc's Notice Of Motion And Motion For Summary Judgment; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof [ECF# 28]
DR-CA-0033-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/11/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative Defenses [ECF# 3]
DR-CA-0033-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/28/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice and Order Regarding Early Neutral Evaluation [ECF# 7] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/05/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Chipotle's Motion To Dismiss Case No. 05-cv-01660-J-WMC For Violation Of Court Rules And Court Orders, Or In The Alternative To Consolidate With Case No. 06-cv-2671 Pending In This Court [ECF# 67] (2007 WL 623897)
DR-CA-0033-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/12/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, To Consolidate With Pending Case [ECF# 70-1] (2007 WL 623898)
DR-CA-0033-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/24/2007
Source: Westlaw
Order: (1) Denying Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Case No. 05CV1660-J (WMC); (2) Granting Defendants' Motion To Consolidate For Purposes Of Discovery Only. (2007 WL 935623) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0026.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/20/2007
Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment, Or In The Alternative, Motion For Summary Adjudication [ECF# 94] (2007 WL 1510054)
DR-CA-0033-0008.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/16/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Following Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, Setting Rule 26 Compliance and Notice of Case Management Conference [ECF# 13] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s Reply To Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 122]
DR-CA-0033-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/25/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Plaintiff's Reply To Chipotle's Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 125]
DR-CA-0033-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/25/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order: (1) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment . . . ; (2) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment . . . ; And (3) Denying Defendant's Motion To Strike . . . . [ECF# 129] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/14/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order: (1) Denying Defendant's Motion For Partial Reconsideration [Doc. No. 132]; (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration [Doc. No. 135] (2007 WL 2456223) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0027.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/23/2007
Source: Westlaw
Order Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion To Consolidate Cases For Trial (2007 WL 2665931) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0028.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/07/2007
Source: Westlaw
Order [denying 151 Motion to Consolidate] [ECF# 152] (2007 WL 2669531) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0037.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/07/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Amend The Amended Pretrial Order (2007 WL 2915048) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0029.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/04/2007
Source: Westlaw
Order [Adjudicating Various Contested Discovery Motions From All Parties] (2007 WL 3333109) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0030.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/08/2007
Source: Westlaw
Order: (1) Adopting Joint Proposed Legal Standards . . . ; (2) Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's Supplemental Legal Standards . . . ; (3) Adopting In Part And Dismissing In Part Defendant's Supplemental Legal Standards . . . . (2007 WL 4162804) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/19/2007
Source: Westlaw
Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s Trial Brief [ECF# 209] (2007 WL 4611210)
DR-CA-0033-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Trial Brief [ECF# 210] (2007 WL 4611211)
DR-CA-0033-0014.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Reply To Chipotle's Trial Brief Re: Issue Of Injunctive Relief [ECF# 221] (2007 WL 4611212)
DR-CA-0033-0015.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/26/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And Judgment [Largely In Favor Of The Defendant] (2008 WL 111052) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0032.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/10/2008
Source: Westlaw
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Findings Of Fact And For Additional Findings. [ECF# 239] (2008 WL 1805828) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/21/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appellant's [Plaintiff's] Opening Brief (2008 WL 4967775)
DR-CA-0033-0019.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/01/2008
Source: Westlaw
Brief Of Amici Curiae Disability Rights Education And Defense Fund, Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California . . . [Of District Court's Order In Favor Of Defendants] (2008 WL 6730383)
DR-CA-0033-0018.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/10/2008
Order: (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration . . . (2) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiff's Amended Bill Of Costs [ECF# 288] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/06/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Plaintiff's] Third Brief On Cross-Appeal (2009 WL 2610252)
DR-CA-0033-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 02/18/2009
Source: Westlaw
[Defendant-Appellee's] Cross-Appeal Reply Brief (2009 WL 2610253)
DR-CA-0033-0021.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/02/2009
Source: Westlaw
Order Granting Defendant's Amended Motion To Stay [Doc. No. 295] (2009 WL 1390811) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0033.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/15/2009
Source: Westlaw
[Plaintiff-Appellant's] First Brief On Cross-Appeal (2009 WL 2610254)
DR-CA-0033-0022.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/16/2009
Source: Westlaw
[Defendant-Appellee's] Second Brief On Cross-Appeal (2009 WL 5576289)
DR-CA-0033-0024.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/17/2009
Source: Westlaw
[Plaintiff's] Third Brief On Cross-Appeal (2009 WL 5576288)
DR-CA-0033-0023.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/14/2009
Source: Westlaw
[Defendant-Appellee's] Fourth Brief On Cross-Appeal (2009 WL 5576290)
DR-CA-0033-0025.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/28/2009
Source: Westlaw
Opinion [regarding the application of the ADA at Chipotle] [Ct. of App. ECF# 62-1] (614 F.3d 971)
DR-CA-0033-0043.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/26/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Opinion [re: Ninth Circuit Mandate] [ECF# 329] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/29/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [re: Plaintiff's Motion for 335 Summary Judgment] [ECF# 359] (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/21/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions] [ECF# 377] (2012 WL 2923310) (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0040.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/17/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [of USCA as to 294 Notice of Cross Appeal] [Ct. of App. ECF# 382]
DR-CA-0033-0041.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/26/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Friedman, Daniel Mortimer (Fed. Circuit, )
DR-CA-0033-0043
Jones, Napoleon A. Jr. (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0012 | DR-CA-0033-0016 | DR-CA-0033-0017 | DR-CA-0033-0026 | DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-0030 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0032 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-0037 | DR-CA-0033-9000 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002 | DR-CA-0033-9003 | DR-CA-0033-9004
McCurine, William Jr. (S.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
DR-CA-0033-0036 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Moskowitz, Barry Ted (S.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0033-0038 | DR-CA-0033-0039 | DR-CA-0033-0040
Porter, Louisa S. (S.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
DR-CA-0033-0034
Plaintiff's Lawyers Vandeveld, Amy B. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0001 | DR-CA-0033-0007 | DR-CA-0033-0010 | DR-CA-0033-0014 | DR-CA-0033-0015 | DR-CA-0033-0019 | DR-CA-0033-0020 | DR-CA-0033-0022 | DR-CA-0033-0023 | DR-CA-0033-0026 | DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-0030 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002 | DR-CA-0033-9003 | DR-CA-0033-9004
Defendant's Lawyers Corfee, Catherine M. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0003 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Ferrell, Scott J. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0004 | DR-CA-0033-0005
Herter, Stacey L. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0006 | DR-CA-0033-0008 | DR-CA-0033-0009 | DR-CA-0033-0026 | DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0035 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Herzog, Jonathan J. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0026 | DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-0030 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Hurley, Gregory F. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0006 | DR-CA-0033-0008 | DR-CA-0033-0009 | DR-CA-0033-0013 | DR-CA-0033-0021 | DR-CA-0033-0024 | DR-CA-0033-0025 | DR-CA-0033-0026 | DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-0030 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-0035 | DR-CA-0033-9000 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002 | DR-CA-0033-9003 | DR-CA-0033-9004
McKee, Jeanne V. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Reinstein, Ezra J. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Robinson, Virginia E. (Virginia)
DR-CA-0033-0021 | DR-CA-0033-0024 | DR-CA-0033-0025 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002 | DR-CA-0033-9003 | DR-CA-0033-9004
Scalia, John Francis (Virginia)
DR-CA-0033-0013 | DR-CA-0033-0021 | DR-CA-0033-0024 | DR-CA-0033-0025 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002 | DR-CA-0033-9003 | DR-CA-0033-9004
Skorupka, Michael W. (Colorado)
DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Sorensen, Matthew (Virginia)
DR-CA-0033-0013 | DR-CA-0033-0021 | DR-CA-0033-0024 | DR-CA-0033-0025 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Trotter, Julie Rae (California)
DR-CA-0033-0004 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Vu, Jeanne Uyen (California)
DR-CA-0033-0013 | DR-CA-0033-0030 | DR-CA-0033-0031
Wegner, Lisa A. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0005
Weston, William S. (California)
DR-CA-0033-0027 | DR-CA-0033-0028 | DR-CA-0033-0029 | DR-CA-0033-0031 | DR-CA-0033-0033 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Williams, Ryan A. (Colorado)
DR-CA-0033-0002 | DR-CA-0033-9000
Other Lawyers Robertson, Amy Farr (Colorado)
DR-CA-0033-0018 | DR-CA-0033-9001 | DR-CA-0033-9002

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -