Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia. Read the opinion of the Court — 730 F. Supp. 2d 200
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided August 13, 2010·No. Civil Action No. 2009-1185·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) MAXINE BLOCKER-BURNETTE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1185 (PLF) ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day, it is

hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary

judgment [6], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claim for unliquidated

damages under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act will be dismissed and the

individually named defendants, Tori Fernandez-Whitney and Carolos Cano, will also be

dismissed. The rest of plaintiff’s claims may proceed; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to maintain her claim for age

discrimination [11] is DENIED as moot; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint

report with the Court regarding how they wish to proceed in this matter by September 13, 2010.

/s/________________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge DATE: August 13, 2010

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia, (D.D.C. 2010).

Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia (Blocker-Burnette v. District of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.