Ramos v. LaJoie et al
| Joshua Ramos |
| Michael LaJoie, Angel Quiros, Butkiewicus, Trifone and APollow |
| 3:2011cv00679 |
| April 27, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Tolland |
| Christopher F. Droney |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
94
RULING denying without prejudice to renewal at trial 72 defendant's Motion to Preclude; and granting in part and denying in part 90 plaintiff's Motion to Preclude. See attached ruling for details. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/28/2015. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing
54
RULING granting 49 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 6/16/14. (Glynn, T.)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Compel. See attached ORDER. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on December 11, 2012. (Pylman, J.)
|
|
Filing
23
RULING AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. The case will proceed only on the claims against defendant Trifone. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 9/12/12. (Glynn, T.)
|
|
Filing
4
PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 5/18/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 6/18/2012), Answer updated for APollow to 12/28/2011; Butkiewicus to 12/28/2011; Michael LaJoie to 12/28/2011; Angel Quiros to 12/28/2011; Trifone to 12/28/2011. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 10/14/11. (Corriette, M.)
|
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
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.
