Doe v. Norwalk Board of Education et al
| Jane Doe |
| Norwalk Board of Education, Lise Krieger and John J. Ramos |
| 3:2021cv00290 |
| March 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Janet Bond Arterton |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
EXHIBIT 1 by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos re #1 Notice of Removal,. (Spahr, M.)
|
|
Filing 14
Supplemental Memorandum in Support re #9 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos. (Spahr, M.)
|
|
Filing 13
NOTICE by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos Objections to Interrogatories and Request for Production (Spahr, M.)
|
|
Filing 12
OBJECTION re #9 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Jane Doe. (Bartlett, Frank)
|
|
Filing 11
Joint REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Bartlett, Frank)
|
|
Securities for Cost in the amount of $ 500.00 posted by Jane Doe. Receipt Number CTXN00022995. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) Modified on 4/1/2021 to add receipt number (Nuzzi, Tiffany).
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #8 Motion for Security for Costs. The defendant(s) having made application to the Clerk of Court for an order requiring the plaintiff(s) to deposit or file a bond with sufficient surety in the sum of $500.00 pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District of Connecticut, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff(s) herein file a bond as security for costs in this action within thirty (30) days from this date. Signed by Clerk on 03/25/2021. (Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION for More Definite Statement by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos.Responses due by 4/14/2021 (Spahr, M.)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Security for Costs by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos. (Spahr, M.)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Neal Patrick Rogan on behalf of Lise Krieger (Rogan, Neal)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE of Appearance by Frank C. Bartlett, Jr on behalf of Jane Doe (Bartlett, Frank)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #3 Electronic Filing Order, #4 Protective Order, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Norwalk Board of Education, John J. Ramos Signed by Clerk on 3/5/2021. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases)(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/5/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 03/05/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/4/2021 Discovery due by 9/4/2021 Dispositive Motions due by 10/9/2021 Signed by Clerk on 3/5/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by John J. Ramos, Norwalk Board of Education from JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, case number FBT-CV-20-5043635-S. Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACTDC-6422300, filed by John J. Ramos, Norwalk Board of Education. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Spahr, M.)
|
|
Judge Janet Bond Arterton added. (Oliver, T.)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
