Caravalho et al v. The City of New York et al
| Alexander Caravalho, Eric Carter, Sergio Castillo, Daniel Greenspan, Austin Guest, Thomas Hintze, Joseph Sharkey, Easton Smith and Jennifer Waller |
| The City of New York, New York City Police Department, First Name Unknown Li, FNU Ahmed, FNU Abdel-Rahim, FNU Rodriguez, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 1:2013cv04174 |
| June 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| P. Kevin Castel |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
287
OPINION AND ORDER re: 280 MOTION for an Order reviewing the Clerk of the Courts taxation of costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) re: 278 Taxation of Costs: Beyond the aforementioned claims, plaintiffs do not dispute further elements of th e Clerk's taxation of costs. Upon this Court's de novo review, the Court holds that plaintiffs should not be taxed for (1) copies of the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Counter Statement to Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Facts, or Counter Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; or (2) the second copy of each deposition transcript, appearance fees , miniscripts, and W.I. pages. The Clerk is Ordered to modify the taxation of cost award to the total amount of $4,085.00. The $4,085.00 amount reflects the $20.00 docketing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1923, and the following totals for the original and one copy of each of the plaintiffs' deposition transcripts: Sergio Castillo: $322.50; Daniel Greenspan: $393.75; Austin Guest: $577.50; Joseph Sharkey: $378.75; Thomas Hintze III: $397.50; Jennifer Wall er: $528.75; Easton Smith: $873.75;and Alexandre Caravalho: $592.50. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. (Doc. 280.) Plaintiffs' request for additional modifications to the taxation of cost is DENIED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/26/2018) (jwh) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
213
MEMORANDUMAND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 181 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All section 1983 claims against all defendants brought by Alexander Caravalho, Eric Carter, Sergio Castillo, Daniel Greenspan, Thomas Hintze, Joseph Sharkey, Easton Smith, and Jennifer Waller are dismissed with prejudice, and each of those eight plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are di smissed without prejudice. All section 1983 claims against all defendants brought by Austin Guest are dismissed with prejudice, except for his excessive force claim against Officer Grantley Bovell. Guest's common law intentional infliction of em otional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Grantley Bovell are dismissed with prejudice, as is Guest's common law negligent, hiring, screening, retention, supervision, and training claim against the City of Ne w York regarding employee Grantley Bovell. Guest's common law assault and battery claim against Grantley Bovell, and the City of New York in respondeat superior, survives defendant's motion for summary judgment. All Guest's other state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 3/31/2016) (spo)
|
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.
