Phillips v. Steiner et al
| Vanessa D. Phillips |
| David P. Steiner, Ronald Rondeau, Maria McGovern and Matthew Crossman |
| 3:2025cv01434 |
| September 3, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah F Russell |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 19
ORDER. On November 17, 2025, Judge Vatti issued a Recommended Ruling #12 . On December 4, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint #13 , and on December 5, Plaintiff filed both an Objection to the Recommended Ruling #17 and a Motion for Extension to File Objections to the Recommended Ruling #16 . On December 15, 2025, the court denied the attempt to amend the Complaint, granted the Motion for Extension nunc pro tunc, and ordered Plaintiff to file an updated objection to the Recommended Ruling #12 . Plaintiff has not done so. The court will therefore consider the Recommended Ruling #12 and the original Objection #17 ."As to a dispositive matter, any part of the magistrate judge's recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by the district judge de novo." Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If a party fails to properly object to the Recommended Ruling, the district judge reviews the Recommended Ruling only for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. A "proper objection" must be timely and specific. Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 359 (2d Cir. 2025). "Merely referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection." Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's Objection simply states that Plaintiff objects to the Recommended Ruling because it "does not fully consider the factual allegations supporting her claims." ECF No. 17, at 1. Other than listing the causes of action, the Objection makes no further arguments against the Recommended Ruling. These conclusory references to the claims in the Original Complaint do not constitute an adequate objection; the court thus reviews the Recommended Ruling only for clear error. Finding no clear error, the court thus adopts the Recommended Ruling in full.I thus conclude: (1) the Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims against Rondeau, McGovern and Crossman are dismissed with prejudice; (2) the Title VII claims against Steiner are dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon exhaustion of administrative remedies; (3) the FMLA claims are dismissed with leave to amend for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Rondeau, McGovern, and Crossman; (4) the FMLA interference claim is dismissed with leave to amend as to Steiner, McGovern, and Crossman; and (5) the FMLA retaliation claim is dismissed with leave to amend as to all defendants. Plaintiff may file a new amended complaint addressing these issues on or before March 3, 2026.. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 2/3/2026. (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed two motions, ECF Nos. #15 , #16 , an Amended Complaint #13 , and an Objection to Recommending Ruling #17 . On November 17, 2025, Judge Vatti issued a Recommended Ruling #12 on Plaintiff's Complaint #1 in accordance with this court's earlier Order 10 .In her Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommended Ruling #16 , Plaintiff states that she filed an Amended Complaint and "did not understand that a separate set of objections to the Recommended Ruling was also required." ECF No. #16 at 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 4, 2025. However, the court cannot accept an Amended Complaint before first completing an initial review of the original Complaint #1 and deciding whether to adopt the Recommended Ruling.On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to file any objections to the Recommended Ruling on or before December 4, 2025. ECF No. #12 . On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Objection to Recommended Ruling" #17 but also moved for additional time to file her objections #16 .The court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to the Recommended Ruling #16 nunc pro tunc. On or before January 5, 2026, Plaintiff may file updated Objections to the Recommended Ruling, which should include any and all objections to the Recommended Ruling without reference to the Amended Complaint. The objections should be directed to the Recommended Ruling's conclusions regarding the original Complaint. To be clear: Plaintiff should not file an Amended Complaint at this time. Instead, if Plaintiff wishes to update her objections to the Recommended Ruling, she shall do so on or before January 5, 2026. After the court has completed its review of the original Complaint and ruled on the Recommended Ruling, the court will inform Plaintiff if she will have an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. Because the court did not yet give Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, the original Complaint #1 is still the operative pleading in this matter. Because the original Complaint #1 is still the operative pleading, the Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate Louis DeJoy from this action and reverse the termination of Defendants Steiner, Rondeau, McGovern, and Crossman.Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend/Correct Defendant's Name #15 is therefore moot. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 12/15/2025. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 17 OBJECTION to #12 Recommended Ruling filed by Vanessa D. Phillips. (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Extension of Time until 14-day extension to File Objections to the Recommended Ruling #12 RECOMMENDED RULING dismissal #1 Complaint filed by Vanessa Phillips 16 Pages. by Vanessa D. Phillips. Motions referred to S. Dave Vatti(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 15 MOTION For Leave to Amend/Correct Defendant's Name by Vanessa D. Phillips.Responses due by 12/26/2025 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Amended Complaint)Motions referred to S. Dave Vatti(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE to Opt Out by Vanessa D. Phillips re #3 Consent to Electronic Notice (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Louis DeJoy, filed by Vanessa Phillips.(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 12 RECOMMENDED RULING. For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the undersigned recommends that the #1 Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) with leave to amend certain claims. Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the clerk of the court by December 4, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to object by that date will preclude appellate review. See Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995). Signed by Judge S. Dave Vatti on 11/17/2025. (Nichols, J) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER granting plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. So Ordered. Signed by Judge S. Dave Vatti on 11/17/2025. (Nichols, J)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti for Motion and Initial Review of the Complaint including #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 9/4/2025.Motions referred to S. Dave Vatti(Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 9 Notice re: Initial Discovery Protocols. Signed by Clerk on 9/3/2025. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 8 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Chartier, A.) |
|
Filing 7
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 9/3/2025.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 9/3/2025.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/3/2025 Discovery due by 3/5/2026 Dispositive Motions due by 4/9/2026 Signed by Clerk on 9/3/2025.(Chartier, A.)
|
| Filing 4 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b), a disclosure statement required under Rule 7.1(a) must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 09/03/2025. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 3 Consent to Electronic Notice by Vanessa Phillips. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Vanessa Phillips. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Matthew Crossman, Maria McGovern, Ronald Rondeau, David P. Steiner, filed by Vanessa Phillips. (Kelsey, N) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Sarah F. Russell assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. (Velez, F) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
