judyrecords
600 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

ROSEMARIE D. PEARSON V. BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTER

Case Information: 10-AA-0941
Short Caption:ROSEMARIE D. PEARSON V. BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTERClassification:Agency - Administrative Agency - Employment Services
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:DOES1236-10Filed Date:08/03/2010

Opening Event Date:08/03/2010Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:12/21/2010Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:04/01/2011
Costs Waived

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
PetitionerRosemarie D. Pearson YPro SeN
RespondentBright Horizons Children's CenterN
Steven E. Kaplan NN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
08/03/2010PETITION FOR REVIEW (nunc pro tunc)
08/03/2010PETITIONER'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
08/31/2010ORDER GRANT PTNR MO TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, and the Clerk shall file the lodged petition for review nunc pro tunc to August 2, 2010. F/ORDERED that Office of Administrative Hearings shall file the record within 60 days from the date of this order. See D.C. App. R. 17. If a hearing was held, the record should include either a certified copy of the transcript of any testimony before the agency or a certified narrative statement of relevant proceedings and evidence in accordance with D.C. App. R. 16 (a)(4). FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall within 30 days from the date of this order advise this court as to the identity of its counsel. See Moore Energy Resources, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of the District of Columbia, 785 A.2d 300, 304 (D.C. 2001); D.C. App. R. 15 (a)(5). (ETW)
08/31/2010CERTIFIED COPY OF PETITION TO OAH & MILWEE
10/08/2010 On consideration of this court's order of August 31, 2010, directing respondent to identify its counsel within 30 days from the date of the order, and it appearing that respondent has failed to comply with the order, it is ORDERED that respondent shall within 15 days from the date of this order advise this court as to the identity of its counsel. See Moore Energy Resources, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of the District of Columbia, 785 A.2d 300, 304 (D.C. 2001); D.C. App. R. 15 (a)(5). Failure to comply with this order shall result in respondent being prohibited from filing its brief. (JAC)
10/12/2010APPEARANCE- of Richard L. Sloane on behalf of respondent
12/03/2010APPEARANCE- of Steven E. Kaplan on behalf of respondent
12/10/2010COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW FOR BUSINESS REASONS RESPONDENT Granted
12/17/2010ORD GRT COUNSEL MO TO WITHDRAW FOR BUSINESS REASON and the appearance of Richard L. Sloane, Esq., is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record. It is F/O that the Clerk shall note that Steven Kaplan, Esq., remains as counsel for respondent. (ETW)
12/21/2010RECORD ON APPEAL w/transcripts
12/21/2010RECORD COMPLETED
12/23/2010 It appearing that the complete record on appeal has been filed with this court, it is ORDERED that petitioner's brief and the limited appendix, including documents required by D.C. App. R. 30 (f), shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and respondent's brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. See D.C. App. R. 30, 31. (JAC)
02/11/2011 On consideration of this court's order of December 23, 2010, directing petitioner to file the brief, and the limited appendix, as required by D.C.App. R. 30 (f), within 40 days from the date of the order, and it appearing that the brief and the appendix have not been filed, it is ORDERED that the brief of petitioner and the limited appendix shall be submitted within 20 days from the date of this order, accompanied by a motion for leave to file the documents out of time. The motion should set forth good cause for the failure either to timely file the documents or to request an extension of time within which to do so. Failure to comply with this order shall subject this petition for review to dismissal without further notice. See D.C. App. R. 13. (JAC)
03/11/2011ORDER: This appeal is hereby dismissed. See D.C. App. R. 13. (By: ETW)
03/11/2011DISMISSED
04/01/2011MANDATE ISSUED