Ruffino v. Harrell
Plaintiff: Jake J. Ruffino
Defendant: Harrell
Case Number: 3:2015cv00509
Filed: April 8, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Fairfield
Presiding Judge: Victor A. Bolden
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER denying 19 Motion for Sanctions; denying 20 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 12/23/2015. (Shin, D.)
April 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 7 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. This case shall proceed against the defendant as set forth in the attached Initial Review Order. Discovery due by 11/16/2015; Dispositive Motions due by 12/16/2015. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/17/2015. (Shin, D.)
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

Search for this case: Ruffino v. Harrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jake J. Ruffino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Harrell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?