Kempner v. Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC et al
| Robin Kempner |
| Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC doing business as SoHoMD, SoHo Managing Company doing business as SoHoMD, Jacques Jospitre and Edward Ratush |
| 3:2025cv01883 |
| November 10, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Omar A Williams |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 32
ORDER granting #31 Motion for Default Entry 55(a). Motion for default judgment due by 6/8/2026. A Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to FRCP 55(b) shall be filed or this action will be dismissed. Signed by Clerk on 5/8/2026. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 31 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a) as to Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC d/b/a SoHoMD, Soho Managing Company d/b/a SoHoMD, Jacques Jospitre, M.D., and Edward Ratush, M.D. by Robin Kempner. (Madsen, William) |
|
Filing 30
ORDER Granting ECF No. #29 , Joint Stipulation of Partial Dismissal. Defendants S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC d/b/a Engage PEO; S2 HR Solutions 1 C, LLC; and S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC (collectively, the "Engage Defendants") and Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation of partial dismissal to dismiss the Engage Defendants from this action without prejudice. See ECF No. 29. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a stipulation of dismissal, by all parties who have appeared, ordinarily strips the court of subject matter jurisdiction such that any post-stipulation court action has no force or effect. See Nat'l City Golf Fin., a Div. of Nat'l City Com. Cap. Co., L.L.C. v. Scott, 899 F.3d 412, 415-17 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 2367 (3d ed. Apr. 2018 update)); cf. Lindquist v. Murphy, No. 3:15-CV-0870 (CSH), 2015 WL 6692244, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2015) (recognizing that "because a voluntary dismissal is effective upon filing, no court order is technically required"). A narrow exception to this general rule necessitates judicial approval (of parties' stipulation of dismissal) when a federal statute so requires. Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 410-12 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)). As a practical matter, however, the court routinely issues an order after the parties' stipulation of dismissal to, inter alia, acknowledge receipt of the stipulation, address the parties' "state[d]" intentions as to prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a)(1)(B), find as moot any pending motions, and or issue directions to the Clerk of Court. Here, the defendants who have appeared in this action (the Engage Defendants), are dismissed without prejudice because the appearing parties so stated that intention in their joint stipulation of partial dismissal. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff intends, however, to pursue the claims against the non-appearing Defendants (Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC; SOHO Managing Company; Dr. Jacques Jospitre, Jr.; and Dr. Edward Ratush) and thus those claims remain pending in this action. Id. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is asked, respectfully, to terminate the Engage Defendants (S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC d/b/a Engage PEO; S2 HR Solutions 1 C, LLC; and S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC) from this action. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 4/6/2026. (Matier, K)
|
| Filing 29 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Engage Defendants by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Set Deadlines/Hearings: Stipulation of Dismissal due by 4/3/2026 or Answer deadline updated for S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC to 4/10/2026; S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC to 4/10/2026; S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC to 4/10/2026. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 28
ORDER Granting in part ECF No. #27 , Motion for Extension of Time. The court thanks the Engage Defendants for their diligent and good faith efforts in seeking to resolve this matter via a joint stipulation of dismissal to conserve judicial resources. See ECF No. 27. The court agrees with Defendants' suspicion that the court "is disinclined to allow further extensions with no indication of when" the parties will reach an agreement regarding an appropriate stipulation of dismissal (and/or appearances are filed on behalf of SohoMD and its principals). Accordingly, the parties shall docket a stipulation of dismissal on or before April 3, 2026 or the Engage Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before April 10, 2026. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 3/13/2026. (Matier, K)
|
| Filing 27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until April 10, 2026 to File Responsive Pleading by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Answer deadline updated for S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC to 3/11/2026; S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC to 3/11/2026; S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC to 3/11/2026. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 26
ORDER Granting ECF No. #25 , Motion for Extension of Time. The court grants Defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before March 11, 2026. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 1/30/2026. (Matier, K)
|
| Filing 25 Third MOTION for Extension of Time until March 11, 2026 to file a responsive pleading by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Answer deadline updated for S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC to 2/9/2026; S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC to 2/9/2026; S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC to 2/9/2026. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 24
ORDER Granting ECF No. #23 , Motion for Extension of Time. The court grants Defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before February 9, 2026. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 1/6/2026. (Matier, K)
|
| Filing 23 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until January 9, 2026 to file a responsive pleading by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Answer deadline updated for S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC to 1/9/2026; S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC to 1/9/2026; S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC to 1/9/2026. (Bergeson, S) |
|
Filing 22
ORDER Granting ECF No. #21 , Motion for Extension of Time. The court grants Defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before January 9, 2026. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 12/11/2025. (Matier, K)
|
| Filing 21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until January 9, 2026 to File Responsive Pleading #1 Complaint by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 20 Disclosure Statement by S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC. (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Allan Fritz on behalf of S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC (Fritz, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 18 Supplemental SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. Edward Ratush served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. Jacques Jospitre served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Robin Kempner. SoHo Managing Company served on 11/19/2025, answer due 12/10/2025. (Madsen, William) |
| Filing 10 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Jacques Jospitre, Edward Ratush, S2 HR Solutions 1C, LLC, S2 HR Solutions Group 1, LLC, S2 HR Solutions, 1D, LLC, SoHo Managing Company, Soho Medical Doctors, PLLC* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *William G. Madsen* *Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC-HTFD* *402 Asylum Street* *Hartford, CT 06103*. (Denault, S) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, 6 Notice re: AI-Assisted Research,,,, #4 Electronic Filing Order, #5 Standing Protective Order, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Complaint filed by Robin Kempner, #8 Standing Order re: Letters Signed by Clerk on 11/12/2025.(Denault, S) |
|
Filing 8
Standing Order re: Letters. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/10/2025.(Denault, S)
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Denault, S) |
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research: Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). Signed by Clerk on 11/10/2025.(Denault, S) |
|
Filing 5
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/10/2025.(Denault, S)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/10/2025.(Denault, S)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/9/2026, Discovery due by 5/12/2026, and Dispositive Motions due by 6/16/2026 Signed by Clerk on 11/10/2025.(Denault, S)
|
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Omar A. Williams 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 Robert M. Spector. (Freberg, B) |
| Filing 2 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 11/10/2025.(Higgins, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-8395875.), filed by Robin Kempner.(Madsen, William) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Madsen, William) |
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.
