Cases

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, DEFENDANT HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS, AND DEFENDANT HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR., Senior District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff A. (“Student”) is a special education student who lives with

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS, United States Magistrate Judge. Familiarity with the Court’s previous ruling is presumed, but in light of the content of the pending motions, the relevant procedural background is recited. (See Dkt. # 49, 2012 WL 3985166 (D.Conn. Sept. 10, 2012); Dkt. #65, 2013 WL 48344

RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS, United States Magistrate Judge. On December 1, 2010, plaintiff J.A., the parent of minor M.A. [“Parent” and “M.A.,” respectively, and collectively “plaintiffs”],1 commenced this action against defendants City of Torrington and the Torrington Board of Education [“defendant Board” and collectively “def

SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. *71Plaintiff-appellant Linneth A. Brown-Scott appeals from the January 31, 2001 grant of summary judgment for the Hartford Board of Education on Brown-Scott’s claim of retaliation in violation of the First Ame

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge. Plaintiff John Doe filed a fourteen-count amended complaint against the Torrington Board of Education and several of its employees alleging violations of the following federal laws: the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 .U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts One and Two); the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen

ALVORD, J. *289 The plaintiff, the Bristol Board of Education (school board), appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the decision of the defendant State Board of Labor Relations (labor board), sustaining the complaint brought by the defendant Local 2267 of Council 4, Amer

SUMMARY ORDER Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. After reviewing the magistrate judge’s initial recommendation, his later “supplemental opinion” and the district court’s acceptance and adoption of same, we reverse the June 30, 2005 judgment and vacate the October 19, 2005 judgment. Background Plaintiffs LA and GA,

Opinion PALMER, J. The plaintiff, Michael Piteau, brought this action against the defendants, the board of education of the city of Hartford (board of education), Local 566, *669Council 4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (Local 566), and Council 4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Emplo

359 F.Supp.2d 102 (2005) A.S. and W.S. individually and through their parents and next friends, Mr. and Mrs. W.S., Plaintiffs, v. TRUMBULL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 3:04CV847MRK. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 22, 2005. *103 Lawrence W. Berliner, Klebanoff & Phelan, PC, West Hartford, CT, for

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant A.S., by his parent and next friend P.B.S., timely appeals from the Ruling entered August 20, 2001,1 that granted the motion of defendant-appellee Board of Education for the Town of West Hartford (“the Board”) for summa

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WARREN W. EGINTON, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Dianne Davenport filed this nine count action against defendant Nor-walk Board of Education (“the Board”) alleging: (1) discrimination, (2) retaliation and (3) termination based on age in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46A-60

572 F.Supp.2d 221 (2008) A.P., a minor, by and through Craig R. POWERS and Susan R. Powers, Plaintiffs, v. WOODSTOCK BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. No. 3:07CV833(MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 19, 2008. *223 Robert L. Skelley, Innovative Legal Minds, LLC, Danielson, CT, for Plaintiffs. Erin O'Br

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 40 Conn. App. 902 (AC 14107), is denied. *917Decided April 1, 1996 Marjorie S. Wilder, corporation counsel, in opposition.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 40 Conn. App. 901 (AC 13880), is denied.

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 96 Conn. App. 456 (AC 26437), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff was a member of an identifiable class of persons subject to imminent harm?”

414 F.Supp.2d 152 (2006) A.S. and W.S. individually and through their parents and next friends, Mr. and Mrs. W.S., Plaintiffs, v. TRUMBULL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. o. 3:04CV847 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 9, 2006. *153 *154 Lawrence W. Berliner, Klebanof

183 F.Supp.2d 534 (2002) A. S., by Her Parents & Next Friends Mr. and Mrs. S. v. NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 3:99CV002 (SRU), 3:99CV003 (SRU). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 13, 2002. *535 *536 David C. Shaw, Law Offices of David C. Shaw, Hartford, CT, for Plaint

Opinion DUPONT, J. The plaintiff, Sharon Durrant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the defendants’1 motion for summary judgment, which was based on governmental immunity under General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) and Connecticut common law.2 The p

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Fahey, J.), entered January 22, 2002, which directed Public Service Mutual Insurance Company to pay 100% of the attorney’s fees and disbursements *858recoverable by defendants-third-party plaintiffs against third-party defendant, plus interest. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimou