judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

KWAME GYAMFI V. JANET BROWN

Case Information: 07-FM-1119
Short Caption:KWAME GYAMFI V. JANET BROWNClassification:Appeals - Family - Custody
Lead: 06-FM-0933 Consolidated: 07-FM-0289 , 07-FM-1119
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:DRB1036-04Filed Date:10/01/2007

Opening Event Date:10/01/2007Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:03/25/2008
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:01/13/2009

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantKwame Gyamfi NPro SeN
AppelleeJanet Brown NPro SeN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
10/01/2007NOTICE OF APPEAL
10/24/2007 Upon consideration fo the notices of appeal in these matters, and it appearing that brieifng has been completed in appeal nos. 06-FM-933 and 07-FM-289, and it further appearing that no new transcript is needed for appeal no. 07-FM-1119, it is ORDERED,sua sponte, that appeal no. 07-FM-1119 is consolidated with previously consolidated appeal nos. 06-FM-933 and 07-FM-289 for all purposes. It is F/O that the Clerk of the Superior Court shall transmit the record index for 07-FM-1119 to this court. It is F/O that appellant's brief addressing the issues raised in appeal no. 07-FM-1119, and the appendix, shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and appellee's brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. (ETW)
10/26/2007APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY pursuant upon Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
10/29/2007TMC - appellant's motion for stay
11/14/2007 ORDERED that the MOTION of Kwame Gyamfi TO STAY IS DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the supplemental brief and appendix of Kwame Gyamfi on the issues raised in appeal no. 07-FM-1119 remains due and shall be filed on or before December 3, 2007. The reply brief of Janet Brown shall be filed 30 days thereafter.
11/16/2007FINAL SCREENING - SUMMARY CALENDAR I
12/03/2007APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM (07-FM-1119)
12/20/2007NOTICE OF FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
02/01/2008CALENDAR NOTICE SENT
02/15/2008APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL and request for oral argument if appellant also request oral argument (motion to dismiss is filed for appeal no. 07-FM-1119)
02/22/2008RECEIVED - order denying writ of cert in Supreme Court.
03/24/2008ORDER DENY APLE MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL no. 07-FM-1119 and the petition for adoption attached to appellant's supplemental brief filed on December 7, 2007, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied inasmuch as five additional days to cover mailing time are allowed for appeals, see D.C. App. R. 4(a)(6) and it is further ORDERED that the petition for adoption is stricken from this appeal inasmuch as petitions for adoption must be filed in the first instance in the Superior Court. See D.C. Code Sec 16-301(a). (FA, FI, ST)
03/25/2008FiledACTION - Argued / Submitted
03/25/2008AMICUS CURIAE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MOTION asking court for reconsideration of the court's denial of the motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief (MOTION RETURNED TO MR. BROWN BY LETTER DATED MARCH 27, 2008.)
03/25/2008SUBMITTED to Judges Farrell, Fisher, Steadman
03/26/2008NOTICE RECEIVED - from aplt regarding removal
03/27/2008LETTER returning to Elliott Brown his March 25 pro se motion asking court for reconsideration since Mr. Brown's request to participate as an amicus curiae has been denied by the court. (JAC)
04/07/2008RECEIVED - Appellee's Response to Appellant's Notice to the Court regarding Removal - filed 3/26/08
07/16/2008RECORD INDEX
12/22/2008DISMISSED On consideration of the asserted removal on 12/12/07, of these appeals to the US District Court of the District of Maryland (Civil No. PJM 07-3361, of which appellant Gyamfi notified this court on 3/26/08, and the order of that court, entered on 7/17/08, dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and on consideration of the fact that neither of the parties to these appeals notified this court of that dismissal order so that the existence of this central order to the further consideration by this court of these appeals only recently came to the attention of this court by other means, and it thereby appearing that neither party is diligent about prosecuting their respective appeals in this court, it is ORDERED that the appeals are accordingly dismissed. See D.C. App. R. 13; Stancil v. D.C. Rental Housing Commission, 806 A.2d 622, 624 (D.C. 2002). (FI,FA,ST)
01/13/2009MANDATE ISSUED