| Case Information: 06-CV-1484 | |||
| Short Caption: | DIANA MYERS V. CHRISTINE HARRELL, ET AL | Classification: | Appeals - Civil - Other Civil |
| Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | CAB3436-00 | Filed Date: | 12/09/2006 |
| | |||
| Opening Event Date: | 12/09/2006 | Case Status: | Closed |
| Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
| Briefs Completed: | |||
| Argued/Submitted: | |||
| Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
| Mandate Issued: | 04/10/2007 | ||
| Party Information | |||||||||
| Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | ||||
| Appellant | Diana Myers | N | Pro Se | N | |||||
| Appellee | Christine Harrell | N |
| ||||||
| Appellee | Tashunna T. Marshall | N |
| ||||||
| Events | ||||
| Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
| 12/09/2006 | NOTICE OF APPEAL | |||
| 01/05/2007 | ORDERED that appellant shall within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed as having been untimely filed to the EXTENT it seeks review of the underlying judgment. D.C. App. R. 4 (a)(1). It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall also SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been taken from a non-final and non-appealable order to the EXTENT it seeks review of the order denying its untimely Rule 59(e) motion. (BY: ETW) lw | |||
| 01/05/2007 | TMC - OTSC - ROTSC | |||
| 01/24/2007 | APLT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE to this Court's order dated 1/5/07 (with attached documents) | |||
| 01/31/2007 | On consideratin of appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a response to this court's January 5, 2007, order to show cause, it is ORDERED that appellant's motion is granted to the extent that appellant's response, if any, shall be filed no later than February 26, 2007. (BY: GP) lw | |||
| 02/26/2007 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Titled as - Motion to Show Cuase not to dismiss appeal) | |||
| 03/16/2007 | ORDERED that this appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED as untimely filed from the original judgment and as unappealable from the denial of the late motions for new trial and from judgment not withstanding the verdict. (D.C. Super. Ct. Civ R. 50 and 59 motions must be filed within 10 days from the date of the original judgment to toll the time for filing an appeal and if they are filed more than 10 days the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider them. See Vaughn v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 702 A.2d 198 (D.C. 1997); Williams v. Vel Ray Property, Inc. 699 A.2d 416 (D.C. 1997): Circle Liquors, Inc. v. Cohen, 670 A.2d 281 (D.C. 1996).) (KRPRST) | |||
| 03/16/2007 | DISMISSED | |||
| 04/10/2007 | MANDATE ISSUED | |||