Urso v. Lamont
| Lindy Robert Urso |
| Ned Lamont |
| 3:2020cv00529 |
| April 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Constitutional - State Statute |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Ned Lamont, filed by Lindy Robert Urso. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, #18 Exhibit R, #19 Exhibit S, #20 Exhibit T, #21 Exhibit U)(Urso, Lindy)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Ned Lamont* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Lindy R. Urso* *Lindy R. Urso, Attorney at Law* *810 Bedford Street - Suite 3* *Stamford, CT 06901*. (Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Complaint, filed by Lindy Robert Urso, #3 Electronic Filing Order, #4 Standing Protective Order Signed by Clerk on 04/20/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 04/18/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 04/18/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/17/2020. Discovery due by 10/18/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 11/22/2020. Signed by Clerk on 04/18/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Judge Kari A. Dooley added. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) Modified on 4/20/2020 to correct file date (Nuzzi, Tiffany).
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Ned Lamont( Filing fee $400 receipt number ACTDC-5809880.), filed by Lindy R. Urso. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Emergency Decl., #2 Exhibit B - EO 7bb, #3 Exhibit C - Defendant's Twitter Post, #4 Exhibit D - CDC Stats, #5 Exhibit E - NEJM Article, #6 Exhibit F - DPH Chart, #7 Exhibit G - Dr. Brosseau Article, #8 Exhibit H - Open Air Study)(Urso, Lindy) Modified on 4/20/2020 to correct party name to captioned party (Walker, J.).
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Ned Lamont (Urso, Lindy) Modified on 4/20/2020 to correct party name to captioned party (Walker, J.).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Urso v. Lamont | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Lindy Robert Urso | |
| Represented By: | Lindy R. Urso |
| 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: Ned Lamont | |
| 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.
