Callahan v. City of New Haven Board of Education
| Tachica Callahan |
| Board of Education |
| 3:2017cv00617 |
| April 13, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
77
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 75 ). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying ruling, the Court DENIES plaintiff Callahan's motion to vacate summary judgment in favor of defendant City of New Haven Board of Education. Doc. # 75 . It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 08/10/2020. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying ruling, the City of New Haven Board of Education's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 54 ) is GRANTED. Callahan's motion to amend her Local Rule 56(a)(2) statement (Doc. # 66 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/18/2019. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. #39) AND CANCELLING ORAL ARGUMENT. For the reasons stated in the Court's ruling that is attached to this docket order, the Court DENIES without prejudice defendant's motion f or summary judgment (Doc. # 39 ). This order is without prejudice to defendant's filing of a new motion for summary judgment in compliance with D. Conn. Local Civil Rule 56 on or before May 6, 2019. In light of the Court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the oral argument hearing that was scheduled for April 18 is CANCELLED, and the Court intends to reschedule oral argument in the event that defendant files a renewed motion for summary judgment and after plaintiff has an opportunity to object or respond to any such renewed motion. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/16/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons stated in the attached order, the complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days by December 7, 2017, that complies with the pleading requirements described in the order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/7/2017. (Zuckier, C.)
|
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
| Search for this case: Callahan v. City of New Haven Board of Education | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Tachica Callahan | |
| 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: Board of Education | |
| 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.
