Pangerl v. Peoria Unified School District
| Regina Pangerl |
| Peoria Unified School District |
| 2:2014cv00836 |
| April 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| David G Campbell |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1401 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
77
ORDER: denying Plaintiff's claims 72 pertaining to Count 1 of the First Amended Complaint 40 and affirming the 3/18/14 decision of the Administrative Law Judge; Plaintiff shall either provide a brief by 3/1/17, justifying the use of the initials T.P. as identification for her daughter in this lawsuit, or use her daughter's real name in all further filings; if Plaintiff files a brief, Defendant may file a response brief by 3/10/17. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 2/15/17. (REW)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER denying 43 Plaintiff Regina Pangerl's Motion in Limine as to the Administrative Record. ORDERED granting in part and denying in part 44 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. The District shall supplement t he Administrative Record with Exhibits S52 and S80 by March 4, 2016. Plaintiff, at her discretion and expense, may provide certified transcripts of these Exhibits to the Court and the District by March 18, 2016. ORDERED that pursuant to the Court& #039;s August 20, 2015 Order (Doc. 53 ), the parties shall file simultaneous Opening Briefs on the merits of Plaintiff's first cause of action, namely the appeal of the administrative decision under IDEA, by April 1, 2016. ORDERED denying 59 District's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum. FURTHER ORDERED denying 62 Plaintiff's Request for Status of these Motions as moot. See document for details. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/29/16. (EJA)
|
|
Filing
57
*ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Answer and/or to Compel Amended Answer (Doc. 52 ). Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 54 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant&# 039;s Motion for Protective Order and Fees (Doc. 56 ). Defendant is not required to answer Plaintiff's pending discovery requests, and the parties shall not propound further discovery, until the Court sets a discovery schedule on Plaintiff's new claims, if necessary. The Court denies both parties' requests for attorneys' fees associated with these Motions. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 12/14/15.(KGM) *Modified to add link to document number on 12/14/2015 (KGM).
|
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 Arizona 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: Pangerl v. Peoria Unified School District | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Regina Pangerl | |
| 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: Peoria Unified School District | |
| 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.
