ELLIS v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Plaintiff: LAKEISHA ELLIS
Defendant: GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
Case Number: 1:2008cv01174
Filed: July 7, 2008
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: John D. Bates
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Viol. of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 6, 2009 39 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 7/6/2009. (lcjdb2)
July 12, 2010 54 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 7/12/2010. (lcjdb2)

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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ELLIS v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: LAKEISHA ELLIS
Represented By: Denise Marie Clark
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
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 [ 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.