judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

LENIR RICHARDSON V. MARY OURISMAN

Case Information: 06-CV-0210
Short Caption:LENIR RICHARDSON V. MARY OURISMANClassification:Appeals - Civil - Contracts
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:CAB1670-05Filed Date:02/17/2006

Opening Event Date:02/17/2006Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:04/07/2006Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:11/06/2006
Costs Waived

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantLenir Richardson YPro SeN
AppelleeMary Ourisman N
Alfred H. Moses NN
Robert E. Wone NN
Emily Johnson Henn NN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
02/17/2006NOTICE OF APPEAL
03/16/2006 On consideration of the notice of appeal filed in this case on February 17. 2006, and it appearing that appellant was granted in forma pauperis status in the trial court, and it further appearing that no transcript is needed for this appeal, it is ORDERED that a briefing order will be issued upon the filing in this court, by the Clerk of the Superior Court, of the record index and record copies in accordance with D.C. App. R. 11 (b)(3)(A). (GP) elp
04/07/2006RECORD INDEX
04/07/2006RECORD COPIES
04/07/2006RECORD COMPLETED
04/12/2006 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. (BY: GP)
05/19/2006APPELLANT'S BRIEF *********STRUCK************* *******PER 7/18/06 ORDER******* LW
05/22/2006APPENDIX - aplt
05/26/2006AFFIDAVIT- of aplt in support of this appeal
06/07/2006APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL or alternatively for summary affirmance
06/08/2006TMC - appellee's motion to dismiss OR for summary affirmance - *****appellee's AMENDED motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for summary affirmance
06/29/2006NOTICE RECEIVED - aple's counsel regarding motion for summary affirmance being returned by the postal service
06/29/2006APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL or alternatively for summary affirmance (amended)
07/18/2006 On consideration of appellee's motions to dismiss, CONSTRUED in part as a motion to strike appelalnt's brief, or alternatively for summary affirmance, it is ORDERED that appellee's motions, to the extent they REQUEST THAT APPELLANT'S BRIEF BE STRICKEN, ARE GRANTED and the Clerk shall STRIKE THE BRIEF OF APPELLANT. It is *****MORE*****
07/18/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall, within 30 days from the date of this order, file a conforming brief. See d.C. App. R. 28 (a) & (e), 30(f) and 32. It is *****MORE*****
07/18/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that appellee's motions, to the extent they REQUEST DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, ARE DENIED. It is *****MORE*****
07/18/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that appellee's MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE ARE HEREBY DENIED W/O PREJUDICE to renewal after appellant files a conforming brief. (GLFINE)
08/15/2006APPELLANT'S BRIEF
08/15/2006APPENDIX - aplt attached to brief
09/18/2006APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
09/19/2006TMC - appellee's RENEWED motion for summary affirmance - appellant's brief
10/13/2006 ORDERED that appellee's motion for summary affirmance IS GRANTED. See Beeton v. D.C., 779 A.2d 918, 923 (d.C. 2001) (quoting Crowley v. North American telecomms. Ass'n, 691 A.2d 1169, 1173 n.2 (D.C. 1997) (other citation omitted));... It is *****MORE*****
10/13/2006 FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order on appeal IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. (GLFINE)
11/06/2006MANDATE ISSUED
12/05/2006APPELLANT'S MISCELLANEOUS SUBSTANTIVE MOTION for CONSIDERATION/AGGRAVATION OF DAMAGES ****CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE LW
12/06/2006TMC - appellant's motion for clarification
12/14/2006 ORDERED that appellant's MOTION IS DENIED as the arguments presented by appellant in her pleadings lack sufficient merit to warrant recalling the mandate. See Watson v. U.S., 536 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C. 1987)(en banc). (GLFINE)