A. et al v. Hartford Board of Education et al
| A. and Mr. A. |
| Hartford Board of Education and New Britain Board of Education |
| 3:2011cv01381 |
| September 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
280
ORDER Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Judgment Interest 275 is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Award of Attorney's Fees 276 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 5/11/17. (LaLone, L.)
|
|
Filing
264
ORDER granting in part 198 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 260 Motion Permission to Submit Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 1/17/17. (LaLone, L.)
|
|
Filing
237
OPINION and ORDER Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement granting in part and denying in part 126 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 128 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 7/19/2016. (Hushin, Z.)
|
|
Filing
145
RULING AND ORDER (see attached) - For the same reasoning articulated in the Court's October 8, 2013 Order, i.e., 104 , the Court, having examined the exhibits filed by Plaintiffs under seal at 121 , [121-1], and [121-2], finds that such exhibi ts contain evidence relevant to Defendants' alleged failure to implement the Hearing Officer's Order, and, accordingly, concludes that this is an instance in which the Court should and shall exercise its discretion to supplement the record. See A.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, 359 F.Supp. 2d 102, 104 (D.Conn. 2005) (noting that a court may "exercise its discretion to supplement the record."). The Court notes that no objection has been made to Plaintiffs' Second Mot ion to Supplement the Administrative Record and, furthermore, the Court does not see how admitting these exhibits into the record would unfairly prejudice any party. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to File Supplements to the Administrative Record 118 , and admits into evidence all supplemental exhibits offered by Plaintiffs at 121 , [121-1], and [121-2]. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/21/14. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER (see attached) - Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery [Doc. 105] is GRANTED. Production will be made in compliance with this Ruling and Order, or any subsequent Order addressing the same subject. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to expedite decision [Doc. 137] is DENIED AS MOOT, this Ruling having decided the underlying motion in question. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/13/14. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER (see attached) - Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record [Doc. 38] is GRANTED. Defendant Hartford Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is denied in all aspects except as to its claims concerning punitive damages, which are granted. Defendant Hartford Board of Education's Motion to Re-Open Discovery is GRANTED, and discovery will re-open immediately, and close on Monday, December 9, 2013. The deadline for any Motions for Summary Judgment is Friday, January 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 10/8/13. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER (see attached) - DENYING in its entirety 87 Defendant New Britain Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss the Second Count of Plainitffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 4/16/13. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
66
RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM AND SCHEDULING ORDER denying as moot 33 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiffs are ordered to file, no later than September 27, 2012, an Amended Answer replacing their Answer of November 7, 2011 [Doc. 25], which must establish clearly the identity of the defendant or defendants in both counts of the Amended Counterclaim, as described more fully in the attached Ruling and Order. In other respects the Proposed Answer of May 22, 2012 (the "Proposed Answe r") [Doc. 33-2] is accepted as an amendment as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Court exercises its discretion to establish that, as of the date of this Ruling and Order, the time for amendment as a matter of course of Plaint iffs' Answer has ended. Consequently, if Plaintiffs seek to include in the Amended Answer any changes to the Proposed Answer other than those necessary to comply with this Ruling and Order, they must file a motion for leave to do so. The attached Ruling and Order contains further instructions to the parties. The Motion to Amend Counterclaim [Doc. 33] is moot in light of the foregoing order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on September 6, 2012. (Caldwell, 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.
