Echevarria v. Insight Medical, P.C. et al
| Ingrit Echevarria |
| Insight Medical, P.C., Al Okhravi and Steve Okhravi |
| 1:2013cv03710 |
| May 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Robert P. Patterson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
98
OPINION AND ORDER re: 93 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Ingrit Echevarria. For the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $82,970.04. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/29/2015) (kko)
|
|
Filing
89
OPINION AND ORDER re: 65 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to FRCP 50(a), 50(b) and 59(e) filed by Insight Medical, P.C., Steve Okhravi, Al Okhravi, 67 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by I nsight Medical, P.C., Steve Okhravi, Al Okhravi: For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Post-Trial Motions and Motion for Fees and Costs are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 65 a nd 67. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint submission on or before January 5, 2015, proposing a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's contemplated motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(k) and/or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(f). (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/22/2014) (tn)
|
|
Filing
80
OPINION AND ORDER re: 65 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to FRCP 50(a), 50(b) and 59(e) filed by Insight Medical, P.C., Steve Okhravi, Al Okhravi: that the parties submit supplemental letter briefing on o r before October 20, 2014, on the following issues: Whether the issue of numerosity was a question for the jury; Whether the parties waived or forfeited any rights they might otherwise have had to jury consideration of the numerosity issue, either by not submitting proposed requests to charge on that issue or by failing to object to the absence of an instruction on that issue; Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the jury, the parties can now agree to have the Court decide the issue; and Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the jury, a new trial is warranted. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/6/2014) (tn)
|
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.
