Daniels v. The City Of New York et al.
Plaintiff: Kevin Daniels
Defendant: The City Of New York, Saul A. Delacruz and Jesus A. Munet
Case Number: 1:2016cv09080
Filed: November 22, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Alison J. Nathan
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
November 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 104 OPINION & ORDER re: 82 FIRST MOTION to Preclude Defendants' Expert. filed by Kevin Daniels. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This resolves Docket Number 82. Within two weeks of the date of this Ord er, the parties shall confer regarding settlement and file a status letter with the Court indicating whether they seek a referral to either the Magistrate Judge or the Court-annexed Mediation Program. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/13/18) (yv)
September 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 99 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by The City Of New York, Jesus A. Munet, Saul A. Delacruz, 58 FIRST MOTION in Limine by the Plaintiff filed by Kevin Daniels. The Def endants' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to Plaintiffs unreasonable seizure claim and denied as to Plaintiff's negligence claim. This resolves docket number 59. A scheduling conference in this matter will be set un der separate order. In light of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, it appears that some of the parties' motions in limine may be moot. As a result, the Court will deny the parties' motions in limine for administrative purposes only. The parties shall refile only motions in limine that are relevant to the Plaintiffs remaining claims. These motions in limine shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Responses to motions in limine will be due two weeks after the motions in limine are filed. This resolves docket numbers 57 and 58. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/27/2018) (mro)
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: Daniels v. The City Of New York 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: Kevin Daniels
Represented By: Steven T. Halperin
Represented By: Fred Lichtmacher
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 City Of New York
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: Saul A. Delacruz
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: Jesus A. Munet
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?