Barney v. Con Edison
Plaintiff: Dorothy Barney
Defendant: Con Edison
Case Number: 1:1999cv00823
Filed: March 16, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Steven M. Gold
Presiding Judge: Kiyo A. Matsumoto
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 206 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 179 Motion for Contempt; adopting Report and Recommendations as to 192 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court grants defendant& #039;s motion to hold plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Mitchell, in civil contempt for failure to comply with Judge Trager's orders dated March 28, 2007, and November 13, 2009. In addition, the court affirms and adopts Magistrate Judge Gold's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court. The court orders defendant to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order upon Mr. Mitchell by personal service, or certified mail or private delivery with return receipt requested. Mr. Mitchell s hall pay the defendant the Sanction amount of $963.00 within three business days after receipt of this Memorandum and Order. If Mr. Mitchell fails to pay the defendant the full Sanction amount within three business days of receipt of this Memor andum and Order, a daily civil contempt fine in the amount of $100, payable to defendant, will begin to accrue on the fourth business day after Mr. Mitchell's receipt of this Memorandum and Order. The daily fine shall continue to accrue for up to ten business days, or until Mr. Mitchell pays the Sanction amount plus any accrued civil contempt fine amounts in full, whichever is earlier. By April 9, 2012, counsel for defendant shall submit to the court a sworn affidavit and supporting do cuments setting forth the following information: (1) the date on which defendant served a copy of this Memorandum of Order on Mr. Mitchell, with proof of his receipt; (2) if applicable, the date on which defendant received Mr. Mitchell's full pa yment of the Sanction amount plus any accrued civil contempt fine amounts; and (3) the amount of additional unpaid civil contempt fines due, if any. Based on this affidavit, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment again st Mr. Mitchell that includes: (1) the outstanding Sanction amount, if any; (2) the amount of additional civil contempt fines due, if any; and (3) attorneys' fees in the amount of $49,459.38, with post-judgment interest to accrue upon entry of judgment at the rate prescribed by law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/16/2012. (Chang, Emily)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Barney v. Con Edison
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dorothy Barney
Represented By: Stephen T. Mitchell
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: Con Edison
Represented By: Barbara Jane Carey
Represented By: Jonathan A. Fields
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?