Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. et al
| Stason Sutton |
| 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. and 10th Avenue Group, Inc. |
| 1:2018cv00090 |
| January 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| J. Paul Oetken |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
137
ORDER... It is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without costs andsubject to restoring the action to the Court's calendar, provided the application to restore theaction is made within thirty days. All filing deadlines and conference dates are adjourned sine die.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 5/2/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
108
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The parties are directed to confer and file a joint letter within thirty days after the date of this order, setting out their respective positions on scheduling any additional inspections of the restaurant property and proposing trial dates. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 12/21/2021) (js)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER: Upon reconsideration, the order denying Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment without further briefing (Dkt. No. 90) is vacated. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before August 28, 2020. Defendants shall file any reply on or before September 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 7/24/2020) ( Responses due by 8/28/2020, Replies due by 9/11/2020.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER denying 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 84 Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating 88 Motion for Conference ; terminating 89 Motion for Conference. Accordingly, summary judgment on the ADA claims is once again denied. The Court also determines that Defendants' request for interlocutory resolution of the appropriate award of fees and costs is untimely. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 83, 84, 88, and 89. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 4/7/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
70
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are DENIED. Sutton is directed to file a letter within thirty days of the date of this order, setting out his position on whether, or to what extent, his A DA claim has been rendered moot by the remedial measures Defendants have undertaken. To the extent that Sutton contends that the claim is not moot, he is free to attach updated evidence that demonstrates a continuing dispute of fact as to Defendan ts' complianceor lack of compliancewith the ADA. Defendants shall have fourteen days following the submission of Suttons letter to file any response. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 48 and 63. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 8/2/2019) (jca)
|
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.
