judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

DANA RICHARD, ETAL V. SALLY MCGREEVY,ETAL

Case Information: 06-CV-1057
Short Caption:DANA RICHARD, ETAL V. SALLY MCGREEVY,ETALClassification:Appeals - Civil - Other Civil
Lead: 06-CV-1056 Consolidated:06-CV-1057, 07-PR-1411
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:CAB2120-06Filed Date:09/11/2006

Opening Event Date:09/11/2006Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:03/22/2007Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:06/22/2007
Argued/Submitted:02/22/2008
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:11/02/2009

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantDana Richard NPro SeN
AppellantNorman Usiak N
Dana F. RichardNY
Henry St. Fitzgerald NN
AppellantRobert Madsen N
Dana F. RichardNY
Henry St. Fitzgerald NN
AppellantPrafull Dave N
Dana F. RichardNY
Henry St. Fitzgerald NN
AppellantSidney Binks N
Dana F. RichardNY
Henry St. Fitzgerald YN
AppellantRichard Ratner N
Dana F. RichardNY
Henry St. Fitzgerald YN
AppelleeSally Mcgreevy N
Mark A. BinstockNY

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
09/11/2006NOTICE OF APPEAL
09/19/2006 ORDERED that appeals nos. 06-CV-896, 06-CV-902, 06-CV-1056 and 06-CV-1057 are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES. *****MORE*****
09/19/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that appellee's MOTION TO DISMISS filed in appeal no.06-CV-896, appellant's request for limited remand in no. 06-CV-902, as well as responses filed to the order to show cause are HEREBY REFERRED TO THE MERITS DIVISION for consideration once these matters are briefed and assigned. It is *****MORE*****
09/19/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that a briefing order will be issued upon the filing in this court, by the Clerk of the Superior Court, the record index as required by D.C. App. R. 11 (b)(3)(A). (GLTENW)
11/15/2006APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL as moot interlocutory appeal 06cv896 & 06cv902 filed by: D.C.
11/16/2006TMC - D.C.'s motion to dismiss appeals nos. 06-CV-896 & 06-CV-902
11/30/2006 ORDERED that District of Columbia's MOTION TO DISMISS appeal nos. 06-CV-896 and 06-CV-902 IS GRANTED and these appeals are HEREBY DISMISSED AS MOOT without prejudice to plaintiff's appeals from the August 25, 2006, and September 8, 2006 order and would not preclude them from arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter either or both the June 9 or August 25 injunctions or that they be vacated ab initio. (RZGLKG)
02/09/2007RECORD INDEX (06-CV-1056)
02/09/2007SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD #1 (19-pgs/tape 7/14/06 proc.)
03/22/2007RECORD INDEX 06c1057
03/22/2007SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD #2 (14-pgs/tape 7/21/06 proc)
03/22/2007RECORD COMPLETED
03/30/2007 It appearing that the complete record on appeal has been filed with this court, it is ORDERED that appellants' briefs and the appendix including the documents required by D.C. App. R. 30 (a)(1), shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and appellees' briefs shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. See D.C. App.R. 31. (GP) elp
05/08/2007APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF no oppo & joint appendix to 5/23/07
05/08/2007MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (H.S. Fitzgerald) Granted
05/11/2007 On consideration of the motion of Henry St. J. FitzGerald, Esquire requesting that his appearance, be entered pro hac vice on behalf of appellants Dana Richard, et al., and appellants' consent motion for an extension of time, it is ORDERED that the motion of Henry St. J. FitzGerald, is granted and the Clerk shall enter the appearance of Henr St. J. FitzGerald, Esquire, pro hac vice on behalf of appellants Dana Richard, et al. It is ***************MORE***************
05/11/2007 FURTHER ORDERED that appellants' motion is granted and appellant's brief and the appendix shall be filed on or before May 23, 2007. (ETW) elp
05/24/2007APPELLANT'S BRIEF (All Aplts)
05/24/2007APPENDIX - Joint
06/22/2007APPELLEE'S BRIEF
06/22/2007BRIEFS COMPLETED
07/13/2007FINAL SCREENING - REGULAR CALENDAR
07/17/2007APLT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF to 8/1/07
07/18/2007RECEIVED - Appellant's Reply Brief (Titled: Aplt's Provisional Reply Brief)
07/25/2007NOTICE RECEIVED - aple does not object to late filing of Appellant's Reply Brief (dwm) (construed as response to the maxrb) (elp)
07/31/2007 On consideration of the motion of appellants for an enlargement of time to file the lodged reply brief, and the response thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and the lodged reply brief of appellants is filed. (GP) elp
10/19/2007 It appearing that this appeal is likely to be calendared for argument during the months of January 2008 thru March 2008, it is ORDERED that counsel shall advise this court in writing by November 21, 2007 of specific dates during that period when they are unavailable so that the court can attempt to avoid such dates in scheduling argument. Counsel must continue to advise the court of availabilities for subsequent months until this case is in fact set for argument. Note that the calendar is prepared approximately two months in advance, e.g. January calendar set for release at the end of November. The court does not encourage the filing of motions to postpone a scheduled argument. If you do seek a change in a scheduled argument date, your motion should both indicate the opponent's position with respect to your request and alternative dates when you and opposing counsel would be available. You may call the Calendar Clerk prior to filing such a motion for information on dates in the scheduled month when the courtroom is available.(aj) Garland Pinkston, Jr. Clerk
11/02/2007LETTER FROM COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING aple
11/21/2007LETTER FROM COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING aplt
12/20/2007CALENDAR NOTICE SENT
02/22/2008FiledACTION - Argued / Submitted
02/22/2008ARGUED before Judges Fisher, Blackburne-Rigsby, Thompson Henry J. St. FitzGerald, Esq. for Appellant Mark A. Binstock, Esq. for Appellee
07/24/2008 On consideration of the motion of appellee in no. 07-PR-1411 to consolidate that appeal with nos. 06-CV-1056 & 06-CV-1057, as well as appellants' response and appellee's reply thereto, and it appearing that further briefing and argument is not necessary to resolve the issues raised in appeal no. 07-PR-1411, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and the above appeals are hereby consolidated for all purposes herein. (FIBRTH)
07/24/2008error dwm
07/24/2008AMENDED OPINION filed October 15, 2009.
07/24/2008REVERSED AND REMANDED Opinion (Fisher, Blackburne-Rigsby, Thompson) and Judgment in Nos. 06-CV-1056, 06-CV-1057, and 07-PR-1411 vacating the August 28, 2006 Order, reversing the judgments on appeal, and remanding this cause to the Probate Division for considera- tion of the merits of the Creditors' complaints.
08/07/2008APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR COSTS & ATTORNEY FEES and to stay the mandate pending clarification (07-PR-1411)(dwm) (FOR APPEAL NOS. 06-CV-1056, 06-CV-1057 AND 07-PR-1411 ONLY)
08/11/2008error
08/21/2008APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE- to aplt's motion for cost, clarif cation and to stay the mandate pending clarification (FOR APPEAL NOS. 06-CV-1056, 06-CV-1057 AND 07-PR-1411 ONLY)
08/29/2008APPELLANT'S REPLY to Appellee's Response to Appellant's Motion for Costs, Clarication and stay the mandate (FOR APPEAL NOS. 06-CV-1056, 06-CV-1057 AND 07-PR-1411 ONLY)
11/19/2008ERROR
11/19/2008ERROR
11/19/2008ORDER sua sponte that appeal nos. 07-CV-93, 06-CV-1056 and 06-Cv-1057 are hereby consolidated and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court's order of January 16, 2007, is hereby vacated, and the consolidaetd cases are remanded to the trial court for (1) appropriate factual findings, including (a) the dates on which any rent was not paid and the amount, if any, due and owing; (b) sufficiency of the notice to quit, or to vacate and cure; or whether there was an effective waiver of notice to quit; and (2) legal conclusions based on applicable statutory provisions and case law. See for example, D.C. Code Sec. 42-3505.01, 42-3202, 42-3204, 42-3208; Suggs v. Lakritz Adler Mgmt., 933 A.2d 795 (D.C. 2007), Luckey v. Borger Mgmt. Inc., 917 A.2d 631 (D.C. 2007) (Per Curiam); Mullin v. N Street Follies Ltd. P'ship, 712 A.2d 487 (D.C. 1998); Cormier v. McRae (D.C. 1992); Jack Spicer Real Estate, Inc. v. Gassaway, 353 A.2d 288 (D.C. 1976); see also Borger Mgmt., Inc. v. Nelson-Lee, No. 07-CV-406 (D.C. October 30, 2008), 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 430, 2008 WL 4735189; Double H. Hous. Corp. v. David, 947 A.2d 38, 40 n.2 (D.C. 2008)). (Per Curiam)
12/09/2008APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY of the Mandate pending correction of Per curiam Order; AND Motion for Correction of 11/19/08 Per Curiam Order and for a Rule 35 Review of this Appeal (dwm) (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
12/09/2008APPELLANT'S MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MOTION for an Extension of Time to Supplement this Court's Authority to Correct Per Curiam Order (dwm) (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
01/07/2009APPELLANT'S MISCELLANEOUS SUBSTANTIVE MOTION for appropriate relief (dwm) (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
01/14/2009APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE to appellant's motion for appropriate relief (dwm) (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
01/26/2009APPELLANT'S REPLY to response to motion for appropriate relief (dwm) (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
03/05/2009ERROR (do not reuse) ta
05/13/2009APPELLEE'S MISCELLANEOUS SUBSTANTIVE MOTION to issue mandate and to unconsolidate this case with 07cv93 (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
05/13/2009APPELLEE'S MISCELLANEOUS SUBSTANTIVE MOTION to issue madate and to unconsolidate this case with appeal #06cv1056 and 06cv1057 (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
06/03/2009APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LV TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE of six day respond to aple's motion to issue mandate and to unconsolidate (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
06/03/2009RECEIVED-aplt's response to aple's motion to issue mandate and unconsolidate (FOR APPEAL NO. 07-CV-93 ONLY)
07/21/2009LETTER- from aplt re case on appeal
07/27/2009LETTER to appellant in response to his letter of July 21. (JAC)
08/03/2009LETTER from aple requesting the the Court move forward on acting on aple's motion to issue mandate and unconsolidate appeals. (dwm)
08/05/2009LETTER from aplt re corrections to court docket.
10/15/2009FiledOrder - AMENDED OPINION (FI,BR,TH)
10/29/2009APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR COSTS & ATTORNEY FEES
10/30/2009ORDER that appellants' motion for costs, clarification, and to stay the mandate pending clarification is granted to the extent that appellants are, hereby, awarded the amount of $1,055.34 for costs; in all other respects, appellants' motion was rendered moot by the court's amended opinion. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue the mandate in these appeals forthwith. (FI,BR,TH)
11/02/2009MANDATE ISSUED