judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

DOROTHY HANDY V. G. JERRY SHAW, PC

Case Information: 06-CV-1544
Short Caption:DOROTHY HANDY V. G. JERRY SHAW, PCClassification:Appeals - Civil - Other Civil
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:CAC1664-01Filed Date:12/30/2006

Opening Event Date:12/30/2006Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:07/16/2007

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantDorothy Handy NPro SeN
AppelleePc G. Jerry Shaw N
Elliott J. Marsden NN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
12/30/2006NOTICE OF APPEAL
01/08/2007APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY (EMERGENCY) and for an Expedited Appeal
01/09/2007TMC - appellant's EMERGENCY motion for stay to to expedite appeal - appellant's motion to strike appellee's response
01/22/2007APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
01/23/2007RECEIVED Appellee's response to Appellant's motion for emergency stay pending appeal and for an expedited appeal.
01/30/2007ORDER DENYING APPELLANT MOTION TO STRIKE and the Clerk SHALL FILE appellee's lodged response. It is *****MORE*****
01/30/2007APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE to appellant's motion to strike
01/30/2007ORDER DENYING APPELLANT MOTION FOR STAY and to EXPEDITE is DENIED. Appellant has failed to make the showing necessary to justify a stay. See Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 321 (D.C. 1987). It is *****MORE*****
01/30/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been prematurely taken from a non-final order. Digital Broad Corp. v. Rosenman & colin, LLP, 847 A.2D 384, 387 N.5 (D.C. 2004);... (KRTHPR)
01/30/2007TMC - OTSC - ROTSC
02/20/2007RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to this Court's order dated 1/30/07
03/01/2007 ORDERED that this appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See West v. Morris, 711 A.2d 1269, 1271 (D.C. 1998). Appellant has offered nothing to support her claim that she is being denied her right to jury trial, and thus, nothing to support her further assertion that this case is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. (KRTHPR)
03/01/2007DISMISSED
03/09/2007APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
03/12/2007TMC - appellant's motion for reconsideration
03/15/2007ORDER DENY APPELLANT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION As this case is pending below, this court lacks authority to review the matter at this time. D.C. Code 11-721 (a)(2001). (KRTHPR)
03/19/2007APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Titled as: Motion for Rehearing En Banc)
03/28/2007RECEIVED - Appellee's Response to Aplt's Motion for Reconsideration
07/05/2007ORDER DENYING APLT PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC On consideration of aplt's pro se motion for reh en banc, construed as a pet for reh en banc, and the lodged response of aple, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the lodged response of aple to the petition. (WHFARZRDGLKRFIBRTH)
07/05/2007APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE to appellant's pet for reh en banc
07/16/2007MANDATE ISSUED