Sanchez et al v. Abderrahman et al
| Gerardo Sanchez and Nirva Sanchez |
| Azzam Abderrahman, John G. Angelet, AzzamJohn/Jane Does 1-20, Board of Managers, Maria Flores, Foundry Condominium Association, Rachel Haque, John J. Malley, Tara Anglin Marolla, Rodney McLean, Smith, Buss and Jacobs, LLP, Roy R. Spells, Kim Walentin and Yonkers Law Firm John/Jane Does 1-20 |
| 1:2010cv03641 |
| August 9, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Carol B. Amon |
| Lois Bloom |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, Marolla's motion for summary judgment is granted, the Sanchezes' motions for default judgment against Abderrahman and WCS are granted in the amount of $1,422.50, a nd the SB&J defendants' cross-claims for indemnification against Abderrahman, WCS, and Marolla are dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 9/30/2014. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)
|
|
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM & ORDER [ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION]: The Court reviews de novo the portions of Magistrate Judge Bloom's 113 Report & Recommendation ("R&R") to which a party has objected and reviews those portions not objected to for clear error. Finding no clear error in that portion of Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R, (see R&R at 9-14), the Court need not consider whether plaintiffs' claims are also barred under the doctrine of collateral e stoppel. Accordingly, the Court adopts as the opinion of the Court that part of Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R which grants the SB&J Defendants' 103 motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs failed to present evidence tha t would permit a rational juror to find that the SB&J Defendants violated the FDCPA. There are two remaining individual defendants in this action-Azzam Abderrahman and Tara Anglin Marolla-and one corporate defendant, WCS. On 5/9/2012 and 6/15/2012 , Magistrate Judge Bloom issued orders directing WCS to obtain counsel and warning that failure to timely retain counsel may result in a default judgment against it. As WCS has not complied with these (ECF Nos. 84 , 88 ) orders, plaintiffs have 30 days to seek an entry of default against WCS. If plaintiffs do not do so, this Court will dismiss the remaining claim against WCS for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, on 3/25/2014. C/mailed to pro se Plaintiffs. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
74
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Court's 70 prior denial of Gerardo's 62 motion is reaffirmed and Nirva's 73 motion is denied. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, on 4/6/2012. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 62 Motion to Strike ; denying 62 Motion for Sanctions. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the affidavits of the Foundry Defendants, the Court remains satisfied that counse l for the Foundry Defendants had secured and has continually retained the consent of those defendants. The motions are denied. Moreover, because the Court's order issued March 30, 2012 dismissed all claims against the Foundry Defendants, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate those Defendants from this action. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiffs). Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 4/2/2012. (Amon, Carol)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER granting 54 Motion to Dismiss of Foundry Defendants; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss of SB&J Defendants; granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss of WCS. The Foundry Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; the SB&J Defendants motion is denied with respect to the FDCPA claim and granted as to all other claims; WCS's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the FDCPA claim and granted as to all other claims; and the Civil RICO/RICO conspiracy claims, civil rights claims, and NY GBL s359 claims are dismissed as to all defendants. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiffs). Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 3/30/2012. (Amon, Carol)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER: Plaintiffs inform the Court that they have served all defendants except for two and request an 6 extension of time to serve defendants Abderrahman and Walentin. The day before plaintiffs filed the instant request, the Court recommended that plaintiffs' amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for plaintiffs' failure to file proof that defendants were served with process by 12/7/2010 or show good cause why service had not been made on defendants. In an abundance of caution, the 5 Report and Recommendation is withdrawn. The Court hereby grants plaintiffs' 6 request for an extension of time to serve defendants. Plaintiffs shall serve defendants with the summons and amended complaint by 1/31/2011, and shall file proof with the Court that defendants have been served. If plaintiffs fail to serve defendants by 1/31/2011 or fail to show good cause why defendants have not been served, I will recommend that the Court should dismiss this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, on 12/17/2010) C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiffs have failed to file proof of service or show good cause why service has not been made on defendants. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) that plaintiffs' [ 3] amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 14 days from service of this Report to file written objections. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 12/14/2010) C/mailed. (Objections to R&R due by 12/31/2010) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
