Raghavendra v. The Trustees of Columbia University et al
| Rajagopala Sampath Raghavendra |
| The Trustees of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger, Robert Kasdin, Joseph A. Ienuso, Jospeh A. Ienuso, William R. Scott, Karen A. Fry, Susan Rieger and Laura D. Barbieri |
| 1:2009cv00019 |
| January 5, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| New York |
| Unassigned |
| Henry B. Pitman |
| Defendant |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1981 Civil Rights |
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
66
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER re: 58 MOTION to Stay filed by Rajagopala Sampath Raghavendra. Plaintiff's motions to stay the actions are denied, plaintiff's motion to remove the Stober Defendants as his attorney in the 06 Civ. 6841 action is denied and plaintiff's motion to re-open the 06 Civ. 6841 action is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark as closed Docket Items 156 and 170 in 06 Civ. 6841 and Docket Item 58 in 09 Civ. 0019. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/3/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jar)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Pitman's R&R in its entirety and upholds the Settlement Agreement. The Court GRANTS Stober's motion to strike immaterial or impertinent matter on its docket and directs the Clerk of Court to strike t he following documents: In the 06 Civ. 6841 action: Docket #'s: 107-08; 114-15; 121; 124; 127; 130-34; In the 08 Civ. 8120 action: Docket #'s: 61; 68-69; and In the 09 Civ. 0019 action: Docket #'s: 45-46 The Court further ORDERS Raghav endra to cease filing papers containing immaterial and inappropriate statements and ad hominem remarks about Stober. Further, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over the Fee Dispute and finds that the Retainer is valid and enforceable. Finally, the Court finds that Stober has earned an award equal to 1/3 (33.33%) of the monies which Columbia agreed to pay to settle the dispute. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Raghavendra must tender to Columbia properly executed "d ocuments that are necessary to accomplish withdrawal" of all claims; he must tender to Columbia release of all claims against all defendants in all actions and the EEOC Charge; and he must tender any and all documents reasonably demanded by defe ndant Columbia and end this matter. Upon presentation of such documents, Columbia must pay the settlement amount, as stated in the July 30,2009 Settlement Agreement, "less applicable taxes and withholding as wages". Such payment should be m ade to Louis D. Stober, Jr. as attorney, who may deduct the fee specified in the Retainer and remit the balance to Raghavendra. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close as moot all pending motions in the three above-referenced cases (06 Civ. 6841; 08 Civ. 8120; 09 Civ. 0019). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 2/19/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tve) Modified on 2/23/2010 (tve).
|
|
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, Irespectfully recommend that the Columbia Defendants' application for an Order directing that plaintiff refrain from having any direct contact with Lee Bollinger, Robert Kasdin and Jane Booth be denied in all respects. Objections to R&R due by 5/15/2009 (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/28/09) Copies Mailed by Chambers.(db)
|
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 Southern 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.
