NICHOLSON v. MABUS
Plaintiff: DENNIS E. NICHOLSON
Defendant: RAY MABUS
Case Number: 1:2016cv02006
Filed: October 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 11001
Presiding Judge: Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 29:754
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the Defendant's 14 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 3/30/2018. (lctnm2)
June 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6/27/2017. (lcckk1)
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: NICHOLSON v. MABUS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DENNIS E. NICHOLSON
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: RAY MABUS
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.


Why Is My Information Online?