Doe v. Boston Public Schools
Plaintiff: Jordan Doe
Defendant: Boston Public Schools
Case Number: 1:2013cv13155
Filed: December 13, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Suffolk
Presiding Judge: Douglas P. Woodlock
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Education
Cause of Action: 20 U.S.C. ยง 1415
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 21 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM entered explaining reasons for abandoning use of 30 day statute of limitations and adopting 3 year statute of limitations on the basis of which the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Boston (#7) was denied in this case.(Woodlock, Douglas)
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Doe v. Boston Public Schools
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jordan Doe
Represented By: Thomas I. Elkind
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: Boston Public Schools
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?