CUNNINGHAM v. WRIGHT
| WILLIAM T. CUNNINGHAM |
| ZACHARY WRIGHT |
| 1:2021cv00187 |
| January 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Amit P Mehta |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2671 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
REPLY to opposition to motion re #5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by ZACHARY WRIGHT. (Hair, Christopher)
|
|
Filing 8
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by WILLIAM T. CUNNINGHAM re #6 Fox/Neal Order. (View Docket Entry #7 to view document.)(zjd)
|
|
Filing 7
Plaintiff's Opposition to #5 Motion to Dismiss filed by WILLIAM T. CUNNINGHAM. "Let this be filed." Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 3/5/2021. (zjd)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER advising Plaintiff to respond by March 1, 2021, to Defendant's #5 Motion to Dismiss or risk dismissal of the case. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/29/2021. (lcapm1)
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION to Dismiss by ZACHARY WRIGHT. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hair, Christopher)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE to Counsel/Party re #1 Notice of Removal, (zsb)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ZACHARY WRIGHT. Case related to Case No. 19-3357. (Hair, Christopher)
|
|
Filing 2
ENTERED IN ERROR.....COMPLAINT against ZACHARY WRIGHT with Jury Demand (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by ZACHARY WRIGHT.(Hair, Christopher) Modified on 1/22/2021 (zsb).
|
|
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re #2 Complaint was entered in error. Duplicate filing. See docket entry #1 . (zsb)
|
|
NOTICE OF ERROR re #1 Notice of Removal; emailed to christopher.hair@usdoj.gov, cc'd 1 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Missing Related Case form. Please submit using the event Notice of Related Case., 2. Pleading filed as attachment. Please file pleading as separate entry., 3. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE is by close of business today. This case will not proceed any further until all errors are satisfied. (zsb, )
|
|
Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court for the District of Columbia, case number 2020 CA 004433 B (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by ZACHARY WRIGHT. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (Superior Court Complaint), #2 Exhibit B (Westfall Certification of Brian P. Hudak, Acting Civil Chief), #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Notice to Counsel/Party (Notice of Related Case))(Hair, Christopher)
|
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
| Search for this case: CUNNINGHAM v. WRIGHT | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: ZACHARY WRIGHT | |
| Represented By: | Christopher Charles Hair |
| 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: WILLIAM T. CUNNINGHAM | |
| 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.
