Devone v. Finley
||March 19, 2013
||Connecticut District Court
||New Haven Office
||Charles S. Haight
|Nature of Suit:
||Assault Libel & Slander
|Cause of Action:
||28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|June 26, 2013
ORDER (see attached) - In order to determine whether diversity of citizenship exists in the case at bar, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to supplement the record on or before Wednesday, July 10, 2013 by providing an affidavit regarding his domicile at the time his Complaint in this action 1 was filed -- i.e., March 19, 2013 -- as well as stating whether he maintained any other residence in any other state at the time at which the Complaint was filed, along with (1) the location of all such r esidences kept; and (2) the approximate length of time spent at each such residence. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to state in detail the source and grounds for his information and belief that at the time at which his Complaint was filed, Defen dant was domiciled in Georgia. All case deadlines shall be stayed pending the Court's review of Plaintiff's affidavit. If, upon review, the Court determines that diversity of citizenship exists, the action may proceed and, at that time, t he Court will address the issues concerning this case's discovery and other deadlines as addressed in the Parties' Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting 14 , filed June 25, 2013. Otherwise, in the absence of such jurisdiction, the Court s hall dismiss the action without prejudice. Alternatively, at any time prior to Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Such dismissal would also be without prejudice. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 6/26/13.(Hornstein, A)
|March 20, 2014
RULING (see attached) - The Court GRANTS 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety on such grounds. The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant both to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 8(a), and it does not reach the claims raised within Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Rule 9(b). The Clerk is directed to close the file.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/20/14. (Hornstein, A)
|April 22, 2014
AMENDED ORDER (see attached) - The Court does not find that Plaintiff has shown sufficiently good cause for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal in this action pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time 29 is DENIED. However, the Court notes that the deadline by which Plaintiff must file any such notice of appeal has not yet expired, and will not expire until the end of Thursday, May 1, 2014. Thus if Plaintiff wishes to file a notice of appeal the case at bar, he must do so on or before Thursday, May 1, 2014. This Order amends and supplants the prior April 22, 2014 Order entered by the Court at 30 . Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 4/22/14.(Hornstein, A)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.