Wang v. International Business Machines Corp.
Plaintiff: Jian Wang
Defendant: International Business Machines Corp.
Case Number: 7:2011cv02992
Filed: May 3, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: White Plains Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Vincent L. Briccetti
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12112
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 151 ORDER: The Court's patience with plaintiff has come to an end. Accordingly, because of plaintiffs pattern of vexatious bad faith litigation and his disregard of multiple Court orders, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff shall not submit any add itional letter, motion, or other filing of any kind to this Court in this case (with the exception of a notice of appeal). If plaintiff disregards this Order, that submission will be summarily rejected and returned to plaintiff without being dockete d or reviewed by the Court. 2. In addition, if plaintiff disregards this Order, the Court, in an exercise of its inherent authority to impose financial sanctions on a vexatious pro se litigant, will impose an escalating financial sanction on plaint iff, to be paid directly to the Clerk of Court. Specifically, plaintiff will be fined $100 for the first such submission, $200 for the second such submission, $400 for the third such submission, $800 for the fourth such submissi on, $1,600 for the fifth such submission and so on. See, e.g., Sassower v. Field, 973 F.2d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1992) (affirming financial sanction on pro se plaintiff for vexatious litigation conduct pursuant to district court's inherent sanc tion authority), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1043 (1993); see also DiSilvestro v. United States, 767 F.2d 30, 32 (2d Cir.) (affirming attorney's fees sanction under district court's inherent sanction authority on pro se plaintiff that viola ted filing injunction), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 862 (1985); Koehl v. Greene, 424 F. App'x 61, 62 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (recognizing district court's inherent power to impose financial sanctions on a pro se plaintiff). The Court ce rtifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 1/27/2023) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
July 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 136 ORDER: Plaintiff's renewed Rule 60(b)(2) motion is DENIED. Plaintiff shall not file anything else related to his counter-proposed judgment. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, he will be sanctioned $500.00 to be paid to the Court . The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the following address: James Wang, 14 Roy Lane, Highland, NY 12528. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 7/20/2021) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
May 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER denying 122 MOTION to Vacate. In a submission entitled "Motion to Clarify Fact" dated May 13, 2021 (Doc. #122), plaintiff once again seeks to vacate the Judgment in this case. This is a frivolous motion because it raises arg uments this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have repeatedly previously rejected. It is therefore DENIED as plainly without merit. Moreover, in accordance with its May 10, 2021, Order, because of plaintiffs history of repe atedly filing frivolous and vexatious motions and other submissions-including the instant Motion to Clarify Fact-for which plaintiff has no objective good faith expectation of prevailing and which have caused needless expense to defendant and an un necessary burden on the Court; because plaintiff has been explicitly warned not to file any more frivolous motions; because plaintiff, even though he is currently proceeding pro se, is an intelligent and sophisticated person who is fully able to comp rehend the orders of the Court; and because no other sanction would be adequate to protect defendant and the Court from further such frivolous and vexatious submissions, the Court issues the following filing injunction: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pla intiff shall not file any further motion or letter or other submission of any kind in this case, without first submitting a letter to the Court seeking permission to do so and explaining the basis for such submission. The letter shall not exceed one page in length, and plaintiff shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of such letter to defendant's counsel. The Court will decide on the basis of that letter whether to grant plaintiff leave to file his motion, letter or other submission on the docket. See generally Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 528-29 (2d Cir. 2005). In its May 10, 2021, Order, the Court also warned plaintiff, in bold font, that if he disregarded that Order, the Court might also impose monetary sanctions on him. At this time, in an exercise of its discretion, the Court will not impose monetary sanctions. However, if plaintiff files yet another frivolous motion, letter or other submission, the Court will impose a monetary sanction in the form of an order directing him to reimburse defendant's attorneys for anyattorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with reviewing and addressing that submission. To be clear, plaintiff shall not file any further motions, lette rs or submissions in this case. If plaintiff wishes to file anything at all, he must first seek the Court's permission to do so, in the manner explained above. If plaintiff wishes to avoid having monetary sanctions imposed against him, he shou ld stop filing further submissions in this case. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an a ppeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the following address: James Wang, 14 Roy Lane, Highland, NY 12528. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #122). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 5/20/2021) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
May 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 121 ORDER: The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's Reply. There is nothing in the Reply that causes the Court to change its decision to deny the Motion to Reopen and Cure Defective. Accordingly, the Court adheres to its May 10 Order in all respects. To the extent plaintiff is requesting any further relief in his Reply, that request is denied as plainly without merit. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in goo d faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the following address: James Wang, 14 Roy Lane, Highland, NY 12528. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 5/12/2021) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
October 28, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 111 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 106 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Jian Wang. The motion to re-open this case and for relief from final judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #106). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Chambers will mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to plaintiff at the following address: James Wang, 14 Roy Lane, Highland, NY 12528. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/28/2019) Copy mailed by Chambers. (mml)
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: Wang v. International Business Machines Corp.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jian Wang
Represented By: Jonathan Adam Bernstein
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: International Business Machines Corp.
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?