CHLOE v. DENT
Plaintiff: KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE
Defendant: DAVID DENT
Case Number: 1:2020cv03090
Filed: October 22, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Presiding Judge: Emmet G Sullivan
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 9, 2020 Filing 13 MOTION to Strike #9 MOTION to Dismiss by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE (zjf)
December 9, 2020 Filing 12 MOTION for Default Judgment by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE (zjf)
December 9, 2020 Filing 11 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re #2 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE. (zjf)
December 9, 2020 Filing 10 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DAVID DENT served on 12/9/2020, answer due 12/30/2020 (zjf)
December 4, 2020 Filing 9 MOTION to Dismiss by DAVID DENT (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(Costantino, Christine)
December 4, 2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Proof Of Service of The Summons And Complaint Upon Defendant due by 12/9/2020. (mac)
December 4, 2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Answer Or Otherwise Response To The Complaint due by 12/4/2020. (mac)
December 3, 2020 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice #8 motion for default judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth a two-step process for obtaining a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. First, a plaintiff must secure an entry of default from the Clerk of Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry of a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Mr. Chloe's motion for a default judgment against Defendant Mr. David Dent is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature because the motion has not been preceded by the Clerk's Entry of Default. Mr. Chloe is advised that all subsequent filings shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chloe shall file proof of service of the Summons and Complaint upon Defendant Mr. Dent by no later than December 9, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/3/2020. (lcegs3)
December 3, 2020 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER denying #7 motion for rebuttal and motion to strike for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(c) ("Each motion and opposition shall be accompanied by a proposed order."). Mr. Chloe is advised that all subsequent filings shall comply with the Court's Local Civil Rules. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/3/2020. (lcegs3)
December 3, 2020 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER granting over objection #5 motion for extension of time. Defendant David Dent shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by no later than December 4, 2020. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Dent's request for an extension of time to file his response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/3/2020. (lcegs3)
December 3, 2020 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice #2 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as premature; for failure to comply with paragraph 13 of #3 the Court's standing order governing civil cases; and for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(c), which requires each motion to be accompanied by a proposed order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/3/2020. (lcegs3)
November 23, 2020 Filing 8 MOTION for Default Judgment by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(zjf)
November 23, 2020 Filing 7 MOTION for Rebuttal, MOTION to Strike #5 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE (zjf)
November 18, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Raymond C. Baldwin on behalf of DAVID DENT (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Baldwin, Raymond)
November 18, 2020 Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment by DAVID DENT (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Costantino, Christine)
November 5, 2020 Filing 4 NOTICE by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE re #3 Standing Order, (zjf)
November 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 STANDING ORDER: The parties are directed to read the attached Standing Order Governing Civil Cases Before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in its entirety upon receipt. The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives in the attached Standing Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/02/20. (Attachment: #1 Exhibit 1) (mac)
October 27, 2020 Summons (1) Issued as to DAVID DENT. (zjf)
October 22, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION for Summary Judgment by KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit)(zjf)

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: CHLOE v. DENT
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DAVID DENT
Represented By: Raymond C. Baldwin
Represented By: Christine M. Costantino
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 ]
Plaintiff: KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE
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?