Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-1381 - A. et al v. Hartford Board of Education et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-1381 - A. et al v. Hartford Board of Education et al
September 6, 2012
PDF | More
RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM AND SCHEDULING ORDER denying as moot 33 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiffs are ordered to file, no later than September 27, 2012, an Amended Answer replacing their Answer of November 7, 2011 [Doc. 25], which must establish clearly the identity of the defendant or defendants in both counts of the Amended Counterclaim, as described more fully in the attached Ruling and Order. In other respects the Proposed Answer of May 22, 2012 (the "Proposed Answer") [Doc. 33-2] is accepted as an amendment as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Court exercises its discretion to establish that, as of the date of this Ruling and Order, the time for amendment as a matter of course of Plaintiffs' Answer has ended. Consequently, if Plaintiffs seek to include in the Amended Answer any changes to the Proposed Answer other than those necessary to comply with this Ruling and Order, they must file a motion for leave to do so. The attached Ruling and Order contains further instructions to the parties. The Motion to Amend Counterclaim [Doc. 33] is moot in light of the foregoing order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on September 6, 2012. (Caldwell, M.)
April 16, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER (see attached) - DENYING in its entirety 87 Defendant New Britain Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss the Second Count of Plainitffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 4/16/13. (Hornstein, A)
October 8, 2013
PDF | More
ORDER (see attached) - Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record [Doc. 38] is GRANTED. Defendant Hartford Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is denied in all aspects except as to its claims concerning punitive damages, which are granted. Defendant Hartford Board of Education's Motion to Re-Open Discovery is GRANTED, and discovery will re-open immediately, and close on Monday, December 9, 2013. The deadline for any Motions for Summary Judgment is Friday, January 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 10/8/13. (Hornstein, A)
March 13, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER (see attached) - Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery [Doc. 105] is GRANTED. Production will be made in compliance with this Ruling and Order, or any subsequent Order addressing the same subject. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to expedite decision [Doc. 137] is DENIED AS MOOT, this Ruling having decided the underlying motion in question. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/13/14. (Hornstein, A)
March 21, 2014
PDF | More
RULING AND ORDER (see attached) - For the same reasoning articulated in the Court's October 8, 2013 Order, i.e., 104, the Court, having examined the exhibits filed by Plaintiffs under seal at 121, [121-1], and [121-2], finds that such exhibits contain evidence relevant to Defendants' alleged failure to implement the Hearing Officer's Order, and, accordingly, concludes that this is an instance in which the Court should and shall exercise its discretion to supplement the record. See A.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, 359 F.Supp. 2d 102, 104 (D.Conn. 2005) (noting that a court may "exercise its discretion to supplement the record."). The Court notes that no objection has been made to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record and, furthermore, the Court does not see how admitting these exhibits into the record would unfairly prejudice any party. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to File Supplements to the Administrative Record 118, and admits into evidence all supplemental exhibits offered by Plaintiffs at 121, [121-1], and [121-2]. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/21/14. (Hornstein, A)
July 19, 2016
PDF | More
ing in part and denying in part 129 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 7/19/2016. (Hushin, Z.)OPINION and ORDER Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement granting in part and denying in part 126 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 128 Motion for Summary Judgment; grant
January 17, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part 198 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 260 Motion Permission to Submit Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 1/17/17. (LaLone, L.)
May 11, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Judgment Interest 275 is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Award of Attorney's Fees 276 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 5/11/17. (LaLone, L.)