Wong v. Yoo et al
Case Number: 1:2004cv04569
Filed: October 25, 2004
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Steven M. Gold
Presiding Judge: Charles P. Sifton
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 264 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Order, defendant Mangone shall produce the relevant records of the Mangone Revocable Trust to plaintiff by September 3, 2012. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 8/17/2012. (Keefe, Reed)
July 20, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 257 ORDER re 241 First MOTION to Quash Demand for Production of Documents filed by James Mangone, 255 Letter filed by Aaron Wong. On June 28, 2012, I terminated defendant James Mangone's motion to quash, Docket Entry 241, inferring from plaintiffs letter of June 13, Docket Entry 253, that plaintiff was no longer seeking the documents at issue in defendant's motion. Plaintiff has since informed the Court that he does press one document request defendant sought to quash, t hat for the 2011 federal tax return of the Mangone Family Partnership. See Docket Entry 255. For the reasons stated in the attached document, I order the following: 1) the tax return shall be provided to defendant Mangone's attorney, Mr. Kleinm an; 2) by July 31, 2012, by letter or during the previously scheduled telephone conference, Mr. Kleinman will inform the Court whether he has received the return and propose a date for a court conference; 3) at this conference, counsel for plaintiff will be required to articulate with specificity why he requires this tax return and may bring an appropriate expert to assist him in doing so. The Court will then examine the document and order disclosure as appropriate. The telephone conference set for JULY 31 at 2:30PM will proceed as scheduled. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 7/20/2012. (Keefe, Reed)
October 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 217 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 193 Motion for Attorney's Fees. Please see attached order for further details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. on 10/19/2010. (Dharia, Kruti)
August 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 144 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying the motions of defendants Mangone and Ciurcina for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs excessive force claims; denying all defendants motions for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs false arrest claim; d enying the motions of defendants Yoo, Viani, and Alfano for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs denial of medical treatment claim; denying the motions of defendants Yoo and Mangone for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs malicious pro secution claim; granting defendant Ciurcinas motion for summary judgment and denying defendant Mangones motion for summary judgment with respect toplaintiffs § 1981 intentional discrimination claim; granting the motions of defendants Mangone and Ciurcina for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs § 1985(3) civil rights conspiracy claim; granting third party defendant Citys motion for summary judgment with respect to third party plaintiffs representation claims and denying same with respect to third-party plaintiffs indemnification claims. Ordered by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton on 8/18/2009. (Sifton, Charles)
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: Wong v. Yoo et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?