-ALC Best Payphones, Inc. v. City of New York, et al
| Best Payphones, Inc. |
| City of New York and Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications |
| 1:2001cv03934 |
| August 16, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| John Gleeson |
| Andrew L. Carter |
| Commerce ICC Rates, Etc |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
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
335
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum and order, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione's September 13, 2018 Report and Recommendation 334 as modified. Plaintiff's moti on for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary judgement is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within thirty days of this memorandum and order, Plaintiff is directed to file a ten-page submission setting forth the appropria te standard for its unconstitutional-condition claim and the undisputed facts in support of that claim, citing only to specific paragraphs of undisputed facts within the parties 56.1 statements. Defendants are directed to file a ten-page opposition, if any, thirty days following Plaintiffs submission, also citing only to specific paragraphs of undisputed facts within the parties 56.1 statements. No reply brief shall be permitted. Failure to abide by the Courts instructions with respect to spe cific citations to the 56.1 statements may result in the imposition of sanctions. Following the parties briefing of Plaintiffs unconstitutional-condition claim and the Courts disposition of that claim, the parties will proceed to trial on Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims and Section 1983 conspiracy claim. Plaintiffs equal-protection claim and Monell claim are dismissed with prejudice. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 9/27/2019. (Valderrama, Freddie)
|
|
Filing
295
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 447 Motion for Discovery in case 1:03-cv-00192-JG-VMS: For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Defendants' spoliation motion is denied except to the extent that Defendants are awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. Counsel shall confer to determine if they can come to an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid. If they cannot come to an agreement, Defendants shall sub mit affidavit(s) and supporting time records on or before March 11, 2016. Plaintiff may submit an opposition by March 17, 2016. No reply permitted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 2/26/2016. Associated Cases: 1:03-cv-00192-JG-VMS, 1:01-cv-03934-JG-VMS, 1:01-cv-08506-JG-VMS (Calabrese, Corey)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER denying (427) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:03-cv-00192-JG-VMS; denying (269) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:01-cv-03934-JG-VMS; denying (243) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:01-cv-08506-JG-VMS. Please see attached document. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 6/15/2015. Associated Cases: 1:03-cv-00192-JG-VMS, 1:01-cv-03934-JG-VMS, 1:01-cv-08506-JG-VMS (Lozar, Ryan)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file an amended complaint pleading claims 1 and 3 from the SAC, insofar as Plaintiff seeks damages based on those claims. It shall do so by August 20, 2010. The Court previously ordered the parties to meet and confer as to which claims/paragraphs from the SAC remain valid after dismissal. After one and half years of disputes, the parties have reported that they have reached an impasse as to only ten paragraphs: 3,5,9,72,153,161,162,167, 169, and paragraph (j) of the wherefore clause, from Plaintiff's "pre-answer stipulation". (Docket Nos. 248,254.) I have reviewed the City's objections and I find its objections valid. Plaintiff is ordered to revise its "pre-answer stipulati on" accordingly and file the amended complaint reflecting those changes. Defendants shall answer the amended complaint by October 5, 2010 and the parties shall appear for a discovery scheduling conference on October 14, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. in Cou rtroom 504 N. If Plaintiff continues with its unwavering stance that it will not file an amended complaint, the Court will have no choice but to dismiss this action with prejudice. I will not tolerate further needless filings, all targeted to circu mvent the inevitable conclusion that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint if it wishes to continue with the present matter. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. on 8/16/2010. Associated Cases: 1:03-cv-00192-JG -ALC, 1:01-cv-03934-JG -ALC, 1:01-cv-08506-JG-ALC (Hunter-Hicks, Tara)
|
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 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.
