Case Information: 05-FM-1586 | |||
Short Caption: | WISE D. ALLEN V. MONIQUE ALLEN | Classification: | Appeals - Family - Domestic Relations |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | DRB2134-03 | Filed Date: | 10/20/2005 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 10/20/2005 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | 03/28/2007 | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | |
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: | 07/06/2007 | ||
Costs Waived |
Party Information | |||||||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | ||||
Appellant | Wise D. Allen | Y | Pro Se | N | |||||
Appellee | Monique Allen | N |
|
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
10/20/2005 | NOTICE OF APPEAL | |||
11/30/2006 | On consideration of the notice of appeal filed in this case on October 20, 2005, from the orders of June 30, 2005 and September 21, 2005, but it appearing that this appeal is timely only as to the September 21, 2005 order, denying appellant's motion to reconsider, and it further appearing that transcripts may be needed for this appeal, it is ORDERED that appellant shall within 20 days from the date of this order file with the Appeals Coordinator's Office a request for preparation of transcripts of proceedings in the Superior Court, on motion with notice, to the appropriate motions or trial judge, for determination in accordance with Hancock v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 472 A.2d 867 (D.C. 1984). See D.C. App. R. 10 (b)(5)(A). It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall simultaneoulsy submit a filed-stamped copy of that motion with this court. It is FURTHER ORDERED appellant's failure to respond to any order of this court, including this order, shall subject this appeal to dismissal without further notice for lack of prosecution. See D.C. App. R. 13(a). (GP) | |||
12/21/2006 | RECEIVED - motion for appeal transcript (rt 9/21/05) - dlm | |||
03/28/2007 | RECORD COPIES | |||
03/28/2007 | RECORD INDEX | |||
03/28/2007 | SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD - #1 (37pgs/Tape) 9/21/05 proc. | |||
03/28/2007 | RECORD COMPLETED | |||
03/30/2007 | It appearing that the complete record on appeal has been filed with this court, it is ORDERED that appellant's brief and the limited appendix including the documents required by D.C. App. R. 30 (f), shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and appellee's brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. See D.C. App. R. 31. (GP) | |||
04/23/2007 | APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF | |||
05/01/2007 | RECEIVED - response to aplt's mot for continunce. (aple has counsel) | |||
05/03/2007 | APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY of execution to preserve the assets | |||
05/07/2007 | TMC - appellant's motion for stay - appellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief - opposition | |||
05/11/2007 | APPELLEE'S OPPOSITION to Appellant's Motion for a Continuance. | |||
05/14/2007 | COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW FOR BUSINESS REASONS | |||
05/14/2007 | APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE - to aplt's motion for stay of execution | |||
05/16/2007 | ORDERED that appellant's MOTION FOR STAY is DENIED. Appellant has failed to either identify the order to be stayed or make the showing necessary to justify such a request. See Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 321 (D.C. 1987). It is *****MORE***** | |||
05/16/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that the MOTION TO WITHDRAW is GRANTED and the appearance of Maureen Glackmin, Esquire, as counsel for appellee is HEREBY WITHDRAWN. It is *****MORE***** | |||
05/16/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that within 20 days from the date of this order appellant shall SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as either having been untimely filed on October 20, 2005, from an order entered in the Superior Court on June 30, 2005, see D.C. App.R. 4 (a)(1), OR as having been taken from a non-final and non-appealable order denying an untimely motion to alter or amend the judgment. See D.C. App. R. 4 (a)(4);... *****MORE***** | |||
05/16/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME is HEREBY HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this court. (RZTHPR) | |||
05/16/2007 | TMC - OTSC - appellee's counsel's motion to withdraw - ROTSC | |||
05/21/2007 | APPELLANT'S BRIEF | |||
05/21/2007 | APPENDIX (attached to brief) | |||
05/23/2007 | COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW FOR BUSINESS REASONS aple w/ consent of aple (Monique Allen) attached | Granted | ||
06/04/2007 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DCCA order dated 5/16/07 | |||
06/13/2007 | ORDERED that the MOTION OF COUNSEL for appellee TO WITHDRAW is GRANTED. It is *****MORE***** | |||
06/13/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED. The notice was untimely filed on October 20, 2005, from an order entered in the Superior Court on June 30, 2005. See D.C. App. R. 4 (a)(1). In order to toll the time for ntoing an appeal, appellant's Rule 59 (e) motion had to be filed by July 20, 2005, as it was not filed, by appellant's own admission, until July 29, 2005, it did not toll the mmandatory 30 day time frame from taking an appeal. Moreover, the denial of the Rule 59 (e) motion is not appealable in its own right. Fleming v. DC, 633 A.2d 846, 849 (D.C. 1993). (RZTHPR) | |||
07/06/2007 | MANDATE ISSUED |