BOYCE et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
| ROBIN BOYCE and N. H. |
| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
| 1:2020cv03502 |
| December 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Carl J Nichols |
| Education |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.(Hardy, Tasha) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 1/22/2021. (zcal) |
MINUTE ORDER. After review of Defendant's #3 Consent Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File a Response to the Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to the Complaint by January 22, 2021. Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on December 28, 2020. (lccjn1)
|
| Filing 3 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Hardy, Tasha) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS (2) Issued Electronically as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-7904777) filed by ROBIN BOYCE, N. H.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons, #4 Summons)(Jones, Robert) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Carl J. Nichols. (adh, ) |
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 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.
