C.H. v. Westerville City School District

Plaintiff: C.H.
Defendant: Westerville City School District
Case Number: 2:2013cv00108
Filed: February 6, 2013
Court: Ohio Southern District Court
Office: Columbus Office
County: FRANKLIN
Referring Judge: Mark R. Abel
Presiding Judge: Edmund A Sargus
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
April 24, 2013 10 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to Appear via telephone for the scheduled preliminary pretrial conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 4/24/13. (sh1)

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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: C.H. v. Westerville City School District
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: C.H.
Represented By: Brian J Laliberte
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Westerville City School District
Represented By: William Charles Curley
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 [ 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.