DeAngelis v. Bridgeport et al
| Carla DeAngelis |
| City of Bridgeport, Dorie Price, Anthony P. D'Onofrio, Jr. and Debra Deida |
| 3:2014cv01618 |
| October 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| 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
120
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Subject to the scope and limitations described in the attached ruling, defendants' motions in limine to preclude certain aspects of the testimony of Wanda Givens (Doc. # 82 ) and Rita Marcus (Doc. # 83 ) are GRANTED. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude certain aspects of the testimony of Theresa Samuelson (Doc. # 84 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff's prior complaints (Doc. # 85 ) is DENIED. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude certain aspects of the testimony of Thea Robison (Doc. # 86 ) is DENIED. Defendants' motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from introducing the conte nt of her statements for the truth of the matters asserted to the Greenwich police department is GRANTED (Doc. # 87 ). Plaintiff's motions in limine regarding factual and legal conclusions (Doc. # 88 ) and regarding the Faragher/Ellerth defense (Doc. # 89 ) are DENIED. Plaintiff's motion regarding spoliation (Doc. # 90 ) is held under abeyance in light of the evidence at trial. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/15/2018. (Zuckier, C.)
|
|
Filing
75
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, defendant's amended motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 39 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Counts One through Four (Title VII and CFEPA discrimination and retaliation) insofar as these counts may be based on a claim of discrimination or retaliation on the grounds of sexual orientation. The motion is otherwise DENIED as to Counts One through Four insofar as these counts are based on a claim of discrimination or retaliation based on gender. The motion is GRANTED as to Count Five (First Amendment retaliation), Count Six (procedural due process), Count Seven (substantive due process), Count Eig ht (civil rights conspiracy), Count Nine (civil conspiracy), and Count Ten (abuse of process). The motion is DENIED as to Count Eleven (negligent infliction of emotional distress) and Count Twelve (intentional infliction of emotional distress). The m otion is GRANTED as to Count Thirteen (indemnification) with respect to any other dismissed count and DENIED with respect to any count against an individual defendant that has not been dismissed. Defendants motion to strike plaintiffs improper disputed issues of material fact paragraphs (Doc. # 54 ) is DENIED as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/5/2017. (Lombard, N.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
