Gem Financial Service, Inc. et al v. City of New York et al
||City of New York, New York City Police Department and Police Officers John Doe #1-10
||Gem Financial Service, Inc. and Mitchell Kaminsky
||March 28, 2013
||New York Eastern District Court
||I. Leo Glasser
||Ramon E. Reyes
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Other
|Cause of Action:
||42:1983 Civil Rights Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 17, 2014
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. As set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court grants Defe ndants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs class of one Equal Protection claim, federal malicious prosecution claim, NYCRL claim, and tortious interference claim. The Court denies Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, state law malicious prosecution claim, municipal liability claim, and request for equitable relief. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/17/2014. (Ramos, Christopher)
|March 31, 2015
ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration re 37 First MOTION for Reconsideration and to dismiss filed by City of New York. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court denies Defendants motion for reconsideration and denies Defendants motion to dismiss. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/31/2015. (Bronn, Natasha)
Access additional case information on PACER
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.