CASTELINO v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Plaintiff: JUSTIN CASTELINO
Defendant: ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Case Number: 2:2017cv00139
Filed: March 28, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: William T. Lawrence
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12117 Americans with Disabilities Act - Enforcement
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 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 294 ENTRY ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Castelino's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 236 ) is DENIED and Rose-Hulman's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 254 ) is GRANTED as to all of Castelino's claims. Only Rose- Hulman&# 039;s counterclaims remain pending. Counsel shall confer and file a notice within 21 days of the date of this Entry informing the Court of their positions regarding when the trial of the counterclaims should be held and how long it will take. Also pending is Rose-Hulman's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal (Dkt. No. 196 ). That motion is DENIED AS MOOT, insofar as it requests dismissal of Castelino's claims as a sanction, as is Castelino's motion for leave to file a surrepl y opposing that motion (Dkt. No. 232 ). If Rose-Hulman wishes to file a motion seeking an award of attorney fees or other expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, it may do so within 45 days of the date of this Entry. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/30/2019. (DMW)
September 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 288 ENTRY ADDRESSING OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Judge Brookman's report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 243 ) is OVERRULED, with the exception of his objection to sanctions being imposed on the Plaintiff rather than on Plaintiff's counsel. With that exception, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Brookman's report and recommendation. The Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 117 , as supplemented by Dkt. No. 140 ) is DENIED. The Defendant's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No 124 ) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's counsel, John Thrasher, is ORDERED to pay the Defendant $3,875.54 within 28 days of the date of this Entry. Mr. Thrasher shall file a notice informing the Court when payment is made. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/18/2018. (DMW)
August 6, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 286 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DIRECTED AT KEVIN DORN [DKT. 263], PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ACCEPT REDACTED EXHIBITS AS TIMELY FILED [DKT. 265], AND ROSE-HULMAN'S MOTION TO AMEND [DKT. 274] - Plaintiff' s Motion to Quash Subpoena Directed at Kevin Dorn [Dkt. 263 ], is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Redacted Exhibits as Timely Filed [Dkt. 265 ] is GRANTED, and Rose-Hulman's Motion to Amend [Dkt. 274 ] is GRANTED. The Clerk is d irected to replace the incomplete Affidavit of Erik Hayes [Dkt. 246-8] with the complete affidavit [Dkt. 274-2]. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file, within 7 days of the date of this order, a redacted version of Dkt. 111-9 and Dkt. 265- 2, blacking out Plaintiff's mother's email address wherever it occurs. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/6/2018. (DMW)
May 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 258 ORDER denying 256 Motion to Strike - SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/30/2018. (JRB)
May 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 242 ENTRY REGARDING PURPORTED NOTICE OF EXTENSION - The Clerk is directed to STRIKE 239 , as well as 241 , which is a reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply that was filed belatedly without leave of court.SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/7/2018.(JRB)
March 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 219 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 107 ] is DENIED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's discovery and provide a privilege log that is fully compl iant with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) on or before April 9, 2018. Plaintiff should be aware that the failure to produce an adequate log in response to this Order may result in a waiver of the privilege. Surgery Ctr. at 900 N. Mich igan Ave., LLC v. Am. Physicians Assurance Corp., Inc., 317 F.R.D. 620, 631-32 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time [Dkt. 170 ] and Third Motion for Extension of Time to Indefinite [Dkt. 187 ] relating to deadlines for the production of Plaintiff's privilege log are DENIED AS MOOT (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/27/2018. (DW)
March 2, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 191 ENTRY REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULINGS - For the reasons set forth above, Castelino's objections set forth in Dkt. Nos. 141 , 142 , 143 , and 144 are OVERRULED. Castelino's motions to stay, Dkt. Nos. 160 and [166,] are DENIED; his motion to stay found at Dkt. No. 159 was mooted by the filing of Dkt. No. 160 . Castelino shall comply with the Magistrate Judge's order regarding his Facebook data, set forth at Dkt. No. 137 at 4, within se ven days of the date of this Entry. That is, within seven days of the date of this Entry, Castelino shall either (1) produce the email link to the download of his Facebook data or (2) provide his Facebook username and password to a third part y vendor chosen by Defendant to assist in the Facebook download process. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling the remainder of Castelino's deposition, which shall be resumed as soon as practicable and which shall be conducted pursuan t to the parameters set forth by the Magistrate Judge in Dkt. No. 138 . The failure to comply with this discovery order likely will result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which could include dismissal of this action (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/2/2018. (DW) Modified on 3/2/2018 (DW).
February 28, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 188 ORDER denying 185 Second Motion to Amend an Order - Mr. Castelino has failed to satisfy the criteria for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and his Second Motion to Amend an Order, 185 , is therefore DENIED. The Court no tes that Mr. Castelino's motion is one of numerous attempts during this litigation to seek additional consideration of issues that the Court has already addressed - to get a second bite at the apple. Each of Mr. Castelino's second-chance motions results in an already overburdened Court expending judicial resources to rule on those motions. Mr. Castelino and his counsel are cautioned to pursue the merits of his case, and not collateral matters. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/28/2018. (RSF)
February 14, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 182 ORDER - Mr. Castelino's § 144 Affidavit 165 addresses rulings made by Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and Judge Lawrence in this case which the Court finds were well-reasoned and thorough, and which do not reflect any personal bias or prejudice on the part of either judge. While Mr. Castelino attempts to spin his arguments to focus on how Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and Judge Lawrence reached their decisions, he essentially complains about the rulings that were reached. The pu rpose of a § 144 affidavit is not for another judge to review the propriety of earlier rulings in the case. Rather, Mr. Castelino can obtain a full review of the rulings about which he complains through an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Cou rt of Appeals. See Tepoel, 2008 WL 2273726 at *2 (denying defendant's disqualification request under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and noting that "defendant will have a complete chance to air his objections before the court of appeals....&quo t;). Because Mr. Castelino's § 144 Affidavit was untimely and since it did not set forth facts showing that either judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of Rose-Hulman, neither disqualification of Magistrate Judge Dinsmore nor Judge Lawrence is warranted( SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/14/2018. (DW)
December 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ENTRY REGARDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL - For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 109 Castelino's motion to disqualify Reedy and her law firm from representing Rose-Hulman in this case. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion Under Local Rule 6-1(b)(1)(B)1 to Accept as Timely (Dkt. No. 127 ). (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/21/2017. (DW)
September 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 104 ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER - This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 91 ). The motion is fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion. By making this baseless accusation of misconduct against Magistrate Judge Dinsmore and defense counsel, Mr. Thrasher has come perilously close to crossing the line from vigorous (if misguided) advocacy to sanctionable conduct. Mr. Thrasher is directed to review the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and the Seventh Circuit Standards of Professional Conduct, both of which govern the conduct of attorneys appearing before this Court, see Local Rule 83-5, and insure that he fully complies with those rules and standards in all future filings, communications, and actions during the course of this case (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/8/2017. (DW)
August 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING - This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 78 ) and the Plaintiff's objection to one of the Magistrate Judge's orders (Dkt. No. 86 ). The Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion to disqualify and OVERRULES the Plaintiff's objection for the reasons set forth below (SEE ENTRY FOR DETAILS). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/16/2017. (DW)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CASTELINO v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JUSTIN CASTELINO
Represented By: John Thrasher
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: ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Represented By: Holly A Reedy
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?