ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plaintiff: GREGORY T ANGELO, TYLER YZAGUIRRE, ROBERT M MILLER, CAMERON M ERICKSON, GREGORY T. ANGELO, ROBERT M. MILLER and CAMERON M. ERICKSON
Defendant: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and ROBERT J. CONTEE, III
Case Number: 1:2022cv01878
Filed: June 30, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Presiding Judge: Randolph D Moss
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re #6 MOTION for Permanent Injunction Rule 56 Statement of undisputed facts filed by GREGORY T. ANGELO, CAMERON M. ERICKSON, ROBERT M. MILLER, TYLER YZAGUIRRE. (Lyon, George)
July 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 15 REPLY to opposition to motion re #12 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by ROBERT J. CONTEE, III, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Saindon, Andrew)
July 21, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' motion to expedite limited discovery, Dkt. #12 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. In considering such requests for expedited discovery, this Court "considers the reasonableness of the request in light of all of the surrounding circumstances," including "(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made." Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88, 98 (D.D.C. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, however, these factors "are only guidelines for the exercise of the Court's discretion." Id. In this instance, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any substantial burden that they would face in answering the narrowly targeted interrogatories that Defendants seek to propound. Furthermore, the prompt and efficient resolution of Plaintiffs' pending motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction, Dkt. #6 , will be furthered by ensuring that the record is complete. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to the interrogatories in Defendants' motion, Dkt. #12 , on or before August 4, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/21/2022. (lcrdm3)
July 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 Memorandum in opposition to re #12 MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by GREGORY T. ANGELO, CAMERON M. ERICKSON, ROBERT M. MILLER, TYLER YZAGUIRRE. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order)(Lyon, George)
July 15, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in this case. See Dkt. #6 . Under Local Rule 65.1(c), Defendants' response to the motion for preliminary injunction is currently due on July 18, 2022. Defendant has filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. #10 . Plaintiffs consent to a 30-day extension conditioned on the Court granting Plaintiffs 30 days to reply to Defendants' response. See Dkt. #11 . The Court concludes that in light of the need to ensure that the record in this case is properly developed, a 60-day extension of time is appropriate. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Consent Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #10 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on or before September 16, 2022 and that Plaintiffs shall file any reply on or before October 17, 2022. It is further ORDERED that if any party plans to seek an evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, that party shall file a motion requesting such a hearing on or before July 29, 2022.Defendants have further requested, without objection, that the Court hold Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint in abeyance. As stated on the record, the Court has STAYED Defendants' obligation to answer the complaint. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants file an answer or other responsive pleading within 14 days of the Court's resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.The Court further notes that to the extent that Plaintiffs ask the Court to consolidate their motion for a preliminary injunction with resolution of the case on the merits, they must prove "actual success" on the merits, rather than likelihood of success on the merits, Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987)), and, unless the Court advances the trial on the merits to occur contemporaneously with any hearing on Plaintiffs' motion, they must demonstrate that they are entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion with the materials required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on or before July 22, 2022, including a statement of material facts not in dispute (citing to particular portions of the record) and any supporting evidentiary material. Defendants, in turn, will be required to respond to that portion of Plaintiffs' motion in a manner consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, including by filing a statement of material facts that are in dispute (citing to any conflicting materials in the record or to the absence of admissible evidence), and any supporting evidentiary material. Defendants may also, if appropriate, seek to defer consideration of that portion of Plaintiffs' motion in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), which requires the opposing parties to submit an affidavit or declaration that explains, in detail, why they cannot at this early stage of the litigation present facts essential to justify their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/15/2022. (lcrdm3)
July 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 REPLY to opposition to motion re #10 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Application for Prelim. Inj. filed by ROBERT J. CONTEE, III, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Sobiecki, Richard)
July 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MOTION to Expedite Discovery by ROBERT J. CONTEE, III, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Exhibit Exhibit A - Proposed Interrogatories)(Rave, Helen)
July 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Memorandum in opposition to re #10 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Application for Prelim. Inj. filed by GREGORY T. ANGELO, CAMERON M. ERICKSON, ROBERT M. MILLER, TYLER YZAGUIRRE. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order)(Lyon, George)
July 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Video (Zoom) Scheduling Conference held on 7/14/2022. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's #12 Motion to Expedite Discovery is due by 7/19/2022; Any reply by Defendant is due by 7/21/2022. Defendant's obligation to answer the complaint is STAYED. (Court Reporter: Nancy Meyer.) (kt)
July 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Application for Prelim. Inj. by ROBERT J. CONTEE, III, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kelley, Mateya)
July 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard P. Sobiecki on behalf of All Defendants (Sobiecki, Richard)
July 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Helen Marie Rave on behalf of All Defendants (Rave, Helen)
July 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Mateya Beth Kelley on behalf of All Defendants (Kelley, Mateya)
July 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MOTION for Permanent Injunction by GREGORY T. ANGELO, CAMERON M. ERICKSON, ROBERT M. MILLER, TYLER YZAGUIRRE. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Exhibit Angelo Declaration, #3 Exhibit Tyler Declaration, #4 Exhibit Miller Declaration, #5 Exhibit Erickson Declaration, #6 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lyon, George)
July 11, 2022 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction, Dkt. #6 , the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear by video before Judge Randolph D. Moss for a scheduling conference at 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/11/2022. (lcrdm1)
July 8, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew J. Saindon on behalf of All Defendants (Saindon, Andrew)
July 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the District of Columbia Attorney General. Date of Service Upon District of Columbia Attorney General 7/7/2022. Answer due for ALL D.C. DEFENDANTS by 7/28/2022. (Lyon, George)
July 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zsb)
July 6, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/16/2022. (lcrdm3)
July 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. (zsb)
June 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-9340588) filed by CAMERON M ERICKSON, GREGORY T ANGELO, ROBERT M MILLER, TYLER YZAGUIRRE. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Summons Bowser, #3 Summons Summons OAG, #4 Summons Summons Contee)(Lyon, George)

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: ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: GREGORY T ANGELO
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: TYLER YZAGUIRRE
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: ROBERT M MILLER
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: CAMERON M ERICKSON
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: GREGORY T. ANGELO
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: ROBERT M. MILLER
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: CAMERON M. ERICKSON
Represented By: George L. Lyon, Jr.
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: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Represented By: Andrew J. Saindon
Represented By: Richard P. Sobiecki
Represented By: Helen Marie Rave
Represented By: Mateya Beth Kelley
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: ROBERT J. CONTEE, III
Represented By: Andrew J. Saindon
Represented By: Richard P. Sobiecki
Represented By: Helen Marie Rave
Represented By: Mateya Beth Kelley
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?