Adamou v. The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia et al
Plaintiff: Idrissa Adamou
Defendant: The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia, The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office, Edward J. Doyle, John and/or Jane Does Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc. and Richard and/or Rachel Roes Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Case Number: 1:2012cv07789
Filed: October 18, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Sarah Netburn
Presiding Judge: Andrew L. Carter
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 7, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 81 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court held a status conference in this matter on April 6, 2016. As stated at the status conference, all proceedings are STAYED as to Defendant Doyle, pending the outcome of his interlocutory appeal of this Court's rul ing on his motion to dismiss to the Second Circuit. As to the other defendants, Plaintiff is to provide the releases contemplated in the Court's Section 1983 Plan and a written settlement demand to them. In addition, the parties are to provid e a joint status report to this Court by April 27, 2016. The status report should advise the Court as to whether the parties believe it would be fruitful to engage in settlement negotiations with the assistance of a magistrate judge, the Court' ;s annexed mediation program, or the Court itself. Finally, in its Order dated March 14, 2016, this Court inadvertently stated that claims remain pending against the John and Jane Doe Defendants in their individual and official capacity. (See ECF No. 76 at 25.) This was in error. All claims against the Doe Defendants in their official capacity have been dismissed. The caption above has been updated to reflect this correction. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 4/6/2016) (tn)
March 14, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 76 OPINION AND ORDER re: 58 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 50 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by Edward J. Doyle, The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia, 65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. filed by City of New York, 61 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. filed by Edward J. Doyle, The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia.The Virginia Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. The Virginia Def endants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is granted as to the claims against the County and the Roe Defendants. The New York Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the claims brought under the New York constitution. The dismissed claims are dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims are: (1) claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Detective Doyle and the Doe Defendants in their individual capacities; (2) state law claims against Detective Doyle and the Doe Defendants in their individual capacities; (3) claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Stiles Defendants; and (4) municipal liability claims against the City. In addition, the caption shall be updated to include only the f ollowing Defendants: (1) Detective Edward J. Doyle, in his individual capacity; (2) "John and/or Jane Does" Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc. (whose identities are unknown but who are known to be police officers and employees of the Spotsylvania County Sheriffs Office), in their individual and official capacities; (3) the City of New York; and (4) "John and/or Jane Stiles" Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc. (whose identities are unknown, but who are known to be police officers and employees of the Ne w York City Police Department). The Court will hold a status conference to address the remaining claims and any next steps in the proceedings on April 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. All remaining parties (and/or counsel) should appear in person in Courtroo m 1306 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY, on the date and time specified above. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Status Conference set for 4/6/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1306, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr..) (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/14/2016) (kgo)
September 23, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 50 OPINION AND ORDER. The Court held a status conference on September 17, 2014. For the reasons stated at the status conference, Defendants Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claims against Linda Griffin, the New York City Police Department, and the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office are DISMISSED in their entirety. Plaintiff's state law claims against the City of New York are DISMISSED for failure to file a notice of claim. Plaintiff's claims against Detective Doyle and other employees of the Sheriff's office are DISMISSED to the extent they are being sued in their official capacities. Plaintiff's individual capacity claims against Detective Doyle and other employees of the Sheriff' ;s office remain. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference, Plaintiff may amend his complaint by September 30, 2014. Defendants may file any motions to dismiss by October 14, 2014. Oppositions are due by October 28, 2 014, and replies are due by November 1, 2014. re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Edward J. Doyle, The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office, The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia, 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by New York City Police Department, Linda Griffin, City of New York. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 9/23/2014) (rjm)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adamou v. The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Idrissa Adamou
Represented By: Richard L. Giampa
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The County of Spotsylvania, Virginia
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office
Represented By: Brian S. Sokoloff
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edward J. Doyle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John and/or Jane Does Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Richard and/or Rachel Roes Nos. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?