Case Information: 11-FM-0212 | |||
Short Caption: | MARIA ELENA LOPEZ V. WILLIAM QUEZADA | Classification: | Appeals - Family - Domestic Relations |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | DRB560-04 | Filed Date: | 02/15/2011 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 02/15/2011 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: | 08/04/2011 |
Party Information | |||||||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | ||||
Appellant | Maria Elena Lopez | N |
| ||||||
Appellee | William Quezada | N |
|
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
02/15/2011 | NOTICE OF APPEAL | |||
03/08/2011 | ORDERED that counsel for appellant shall, w/n 20 days from the date of this order, SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed either for LACK OF STANDING; or as IMPROPERLY FILED...SEE HARDCOPY (BY: ETW) | |||
03/08/2011 | TMC - OTSC - ROTSC & for SUMMARY REVERSAL - supplemental to ROTSC - oppo to summary reversal - reply | |||
04/13/2011 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL LW | |||
04/20/2011 | MISCELLANEOUS (SUPPLEMENT TO ROTSC) MOTION FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE LW | |||
04/25/2011 | APPELLEE'S OPPOSITION to motion for summary disposition | |||
04/29/2011 | APPELLANT'S REPLY - to aple's oppo to aplt's motion for summary disposition(dwm) | |||
05/02/2011 | RECEIVED - Appellee's Reply to Appellant's request to take judicial notice (construed as Aplt's supplement to ROTSC) (Titled as: Appellee's Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Summary Disposition) | |||
05/31/2011 | ORDERED that to the the extent the appeal is taken from the 9/24/10, 3/18/10 and 12/9/09 orders, IT IS DISMISSED...It is FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the appeal is taken from the 1/24/11 order, it is DISMISSED AS having been taken from a NON-APPEALABLE ORDER. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, to take judicial notice, and for leave to file an amended complaint are DENIED AS MOOT. (FIBEKG) | |||
05/31/2011 | DISMISSED | |||
06/20/2011 | APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION including REQUEST TO RECALL MANDATE IN 10FM371 and 10FM372 and to consolidate LW | |||
06/21/2011 | TMC - motion for reconsideration | |||
06/29/2011 | ORDERED that the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. It is FURHTER ORDERED that APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO RECALL THE MANDATE in APPEALS 10FM371 and 10FM372 and TO CONSOLIDATE those appeals w/the instant appeal IS DENIED W/O PREJUDICE to appellant filing appropriate motions in those cases. See DC App. R. 41 (f). (FIBEKG) | |||
08/04/2011 | Filed | Mandate | ||
08/30/2011 | Lodged | Letter From - William Quezada regarding the Court properly considered all relevant factors (Appellee) |