S.H. v. THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Eastern District S.H. v. THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

S.H. v. THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff:	S.H.
Defendant:	THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case Number:	2:2010cv06070
Filed:	November 5, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Philadelphia Office
County:	Montgomery
Presiding Judge:	HARVEY BARTLE
Nature of Suit:	Commercial/ICC Rates/etc.
Cause of Action:	20 U.S.C. § 1415
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 19, 2012	Filing 45 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC.#23) IS GRANTED; THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF TAWANA JONES (DOC.#29) AND DR. RONALD L. ROSEN BERG (DOC.#30) ARE DENIED AS MOOT; AND THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF PLAINTIFFS TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF DR. CATHERINE A. FIORELLO (DOC.#38) AND CHAD L. STALLER AND JAMES MARKHAM (DOC.#39) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 7/19/12. 7/20/12 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[FDC]
June 30, 2011	Filing 9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT, INCORRECTLY DENOMINATED A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 12(B)(1) OF THE FRCP, IS GRANTED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(b)(6); AND THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS OTHERWISE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 6/30/11. 6/30/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 19, 2012

Filing 45 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC.#23) IS GRANTED; THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANT LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF TAWANA JONES (DOC.#29) AND DR. RONALD L. ROSEN BERG (DOC.#30) ARE DENIED AS MOOT; AND THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF PLAINTIFFS TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF DR. CATHERINE A. FIORELLO (DOC.#38) AND CHAD L. STALLER AND JAMES MARKHAM (DOC.#39) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 7/19/12. 7/20/12 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[FDC]

June 30, 2011

Filing 9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT, INCORRECTLY DENOMINATED A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 12(B)(1) OF THE FRCP, IS GRANTED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(b)(6); AND THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS OTHERWISE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 6/30/11. 6/30/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc)

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: S.H. v. THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: THE LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT
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: S.H.
Represented By:	SONJA D. KERR
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?