Arbelaez et al v. City of New York et al
| Sebastian Arbelaez, Luz Arbelaez, Deborah Arbelaez and Pablo Arbelaez |
| City of New York, Doris Lopez, Ryan Boylan, Mack Lipinski, Brian Winrow and John and/or Jane Does Nos 1, 2, 3, etc. |
| 1:2017cv06543 |
| August 28, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Richard J. Sullivan |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
177
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court having been advised at ECF No. 175 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without preju dice to the right to reopen the action within sixty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter m ay be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the se ttlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be "so ordered" by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(B) of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain j urisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. This Order, however, does not relieve Defendants of their obligation to comply with the Court's order of earlier today regarding the filing of the Viscardi declaration by November 25, 2019. See ECF No. 176. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/21/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
173
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 171 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 167 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by Ryan Boylan, Brian Winrow, Doris Lopez, Emile Provencher, Mark O'Connell, Mack Lipinski, City of New York. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions are denied. On a related note, pursuant to the Court's October 31, 2019 Opinion and Order, the parties had until November 14, 2019, to file an agreed-upon protective order with limitations and precautions sufficient to protect the CI's identity from disclosure or, in the alternative, competing proposed orders and letters briefs in support of those orders. 2019 WL 5634174, at *4. Neither party did so. That may be because of D efendants' motion for reconsideration. But it is well established that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the order at issue. See, e.g., New Pac. Overseas Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Excal Int'l Dev. Corp., No. 99-CV-2 436 DLC, 2000 WL 377513, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2000) ("[Any suggestion] that a party itself may stay an order merely by filing a motion for reconsideration is plainly frivolous. A court's order remains in force until it is vacated or stayed, and a party disregards such an order at its peril." (citing Tekkno Labs., Inc. v. Perales, 933 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, no later than Thursday, November 21, 2019, the parties shall comply with the Court's prior Order or sanctions may be imposed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 171 SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/18/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
167
OPINION AND ORDER re: 137 MOTION to reverse the Court's sua sponte motion dismissing Confidential Informant Richard/Rachel Roe (see 7/17/2018 Minute Entry) and to allow plaintiffs to depose Confidential Informant Richard/Rachel Roe (see re: 126 Order, Set Deadlines, filed by Pablo Arbelaez, Sebastian Arbelaez, Luz Arbelaez, Deborah Arbelaez. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of Judge Sullivan's order dismissing the CI as a defendant is GRANTED in part and DEN IED in part, and discovery is reopened for the sole purpose of deposing the CI, subject to entry of a protective order with limitations and precautions sufficient to protect the CI's identity from disclosure. The parties shall promptly confer and, within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order, submit either (1) an agreed-upon proposed protective order or (2) competing proposed orders and letter briefs in support of those proposed orders. Separately, within one week of the dat e of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs shall show cause why their claims against the CI should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint within the ninety days prescribed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 137. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/31/19) (yv)
|
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.
