Moore v. The County of Suffolk et al
| Duane Moore |
| The County of Suffolk, Mark Epley, Henry Lemons, Jr. and William Wilson, Jr. |
| 2:2009cv02031 |
| May 13, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Suffolk |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgement |
| 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
88
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Court hereby invites the Attorney General of New York State to participate as amicus curiae in this action, addressing whether New York State law preempts laws enacted by the County of Suff olk and the Village of Southampton governing the post-conviction conduct and monitoring of registered sex offenders within their communities. If the Attorney General accepts, he should notify the Court by letter on or before September 30, 2013, or re quest additional time to do so. Should the Attorney General choose to submit briefing or otherwise participate in the proceedings, he should propose a date for filing an initial brief in his letter to the Court. The parties to this action will be permitted to file responsive supplemental submissions to any filing by the Attorney General. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 8/14/2013. (Galeotti, Matthew)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER denying 58 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 59 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court denies defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds of standing and Pullm an abstention. Moreover, the Court, in its discretion, intends to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim and decide the state law preemption issue first, because it is likely to render the federal constitutional claims mo ot. Therefore, the Court exercises pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim namely, whether Article I, Chapter § 428 of the Suffolk County Local Law and Article 1, §§ 215-1 through 215-5 of the Code of the Town of Southampton ar e preempted under New York common law and the Municipal Home Rule Law. However, because the County had raised a procedural objection at one point to the Court deciding the state law preemption issue without a formal motion by plaintiff for summary ju dgment and injunctive relief, the Court will require plaintiff to make that motion and allow any party to make additional submissions on the state preemption issue, if they wish. Finally, the motions to dismiss the federal claims are denied without prejudice to renewal, if necessary, after the Court addresses the state law preemption issue. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/30/2012. (Weber, Rebecca)
|
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.
