Russell v. New York University et al
| Suzan M. Russell |
| New York University, Robert Squillace, Joseph M. Tometz and Eve Meltzer |
| 1:2015cv02185 |
| March 24, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| Gregory H. Woods |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
202
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 136 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Eve Meltzer, Joseph M. Tometz, 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Robert Squillace, New York University, 200 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Joseph M. Tometz, 99 FIRST MOTION to Preclude Tetsimony and Report of Plaintiff's Expert. filed by Eve Meltzer, Joseph M. Tometz, 113 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert. filed by Robert Squillace, New York University. For the foregoing reasons, the NYU Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and Title IX. Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the re maining state- and city-law claims, Dr. Russell's claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL are DISMISSED without prejudice as to all defendants in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/17/2017) (rj)
|
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.
