Atlanta Independent School System v. S.F.
| Atlanta Independent School System |
| S.F. |
| S.F. |
| Atlanta Independent School System |
| M.F., C.F. and S.F. |
| Gwendolyn Stokes and Sherri Jones |
| 1:2009cv02166 |
| August 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Atlanta Office |
| Fulton |
| Story |
| Other |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
284
ORDER granting 171 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 233 Motion for Additional Evidence; and granting in part and denying in part 236 Motion for Admission of additional evidence under IDEA. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 03/31/2011. (rvb)
|
|
Filing
259
ORDER denying 154 Defendants' Motion to Quash; denying 175 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply; granting in part and denying in part 178 Defendants' First Motion to Compel; denying as moot 200 Third-Party Defendant S tokes' Motion to Strike; denying 215 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims; denying 226 Third-Party Defendant Stokes' Motion for Protective Order; and denying 231 Third-Party Defendant Stokes' Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 2/22/11. (cem)
|
|
Filing
216
ORDER denying 192 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration; denying 205 AISS's Motion for Reconsideration; and denying 211 Third-Party Defendant Jones' Motion to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/23/10. (cem)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER: Defendants' First Motion for Summary Judgment 48 is GRANTED and Defendants Motion in Limine 130 is GRANTED. Third-Party Plaintiffs' First Motion for Order to Take Notice of Decision of Georgia OSAH on its Jurisdiction 150 is GR ANTED. Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint as Against Jones 117 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. To the extent S.F.'s parents seek to state a substantive due process claim for their violation of their liberty in terests, that attempt is futile and their Section 1983 claim based on this ground is DISMISSED. Third-Party Plaintiffs attempt to state a First Amendment violation as a basis for a claim under Section 1983 is also futile and such a claim is DISMISSED . Third-Party Plaintiff may proceed on the remaining claims in the Proposed Amended Complaint. Third-Party DefendantJones's Motion to Dismiss 92 is DENIED, as moot, and Third-Party Plaintiffs First Motion for Order to Take Notice of Decision o f Georgia OSAH on its Jurisdiction 150 is GRANTED. Third-Party Defendant Jones's Motion for Oral Argument 162 is DENIED. Third-Party Plaintiffs S.F. et al.s Motion to Amend the Complaint as Against Defendant Stokes 124 is GRANTED, in part , and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs' claim against Stokes for intentional infliction of emotional distress may proceed. The other claims in Plaintiffs' Proposed AmendedComplaint 124 are futile and therefore are DISMISSED. Third-Party Defend ant Gwendolyn Stokes's Motion to Dismiss 64 is DENIED, as moot. Finally, the third-party claims are hereby SEVERED for purposes of trial. The discovery stay applicable to these claims is hereby lifted, and discovery may now proceed. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/16/2010. (pdw)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Amend, Defendants' 12 Motion to Strike is DENIED, and Defendants' 38 First Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 3/8/2010. (gar)
|
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 Georgia Northern 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.
