Sibley v. McConnell

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sibley v. McConnell. Read the opinion of the Court — 139 F. Supp. 3d 194
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided October 13, 2015·No. Civil Action No. 2015-0730·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,

Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 15-730 (JEB)

THE HONORABLE MITCH MCCONNELL, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED; and 3. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and 4. Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Remand is GRANTED; and 5. The case is REMANDED to D.C. Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James E. Boasberg

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge

Date: October 13, 2015

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

Sibley v. McConnell, (D.D.C. 2015).

Sibley v. McConnell (Sibley v. McConnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.