K. et al v. Morrison et al
| Cherry Kelly and N. K. |
| Reginald Mayo, New Haven Board of Education, Michael Crocco, Yolanda Jone-Generette, Marquis Morrison, Troy Winfrey and City of New Haven |
| 3:2011cv01977 |
| December 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Other 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
60
RULING (see attached) on Question of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Count One of the 24 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remaining Counts, Two through Fifteen, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on September 5, 2014.(Dorais, L.)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER (see attached) - Counsel for Plaintiffs, and counsel for the Defendants as well, are directed to file simultaneously briefs addressing the issues raised within this Order on or before Friday, May 23, 2014. If so advised, counsel may file reply briefs on or before Friday, June 6, 2014. If the Court desires oral argument, counsel will be advised. Given the present posture of the case, resulting from the Court's sua sponte inquiry into subject matter jurisdiction, the following motio ns are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal: 41 , Defendant City of New Haven's motion to quash subpoenas and for protective order; 50 , Plaintiffs' motion to take deposition of Defendant Marquis Morrison; and 51 , Plaintiffs' moti on to take deposition of Nikki Curry. The Court GRANTS 49 , Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time in which to respond to 48 the Court's January 14, 2014 Order, and counsel are directed to proceed in a manner consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 5/1/14. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER (see attached) - Counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for all Defendants are directed to exchange and file simultaneously briefs addressing the question of subject matter jurisdiction vel non with respect to Count One of the Amended Complaint. I t is incumbent upon counsel for Plaintiffs to specify which constitutional or federal-law interest(s) Defendant Morrison is alleged to have violated, and to demonstrate, with citation to relevant authority, why that claim falls within federal subject matter jurisdiction. These briefs must be filed not later than Tuesday, February 4, 2014, unless the Court extends that time for good cause shown. (Hornstein, A)
|
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.
