Legal Opinion
['Hill v. Gray']
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 21, 2014No. Civil Action No. 2013-0001PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Re Document No.: 8
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs are ten former employees of the District of Columbia Public Schools, who were subject to a reduction-in-foree. The plaintiffs brought this suit against the District of Columbia alleging defamation, due process violations, and age discrimina tion. The defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims. For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted, in part, regarding the…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lattisaw v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Union Station Venture LimitedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Sanders v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Hendrix v. NapolitanoDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Knight v. MabusDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.