Armatas v. Maroulleti et al
| Panagiotis Armatas |
| Elena Maroulleti, The City of New York, The New York City Police Department and Police Officers John Does and Jane Does |
| 1:2008cv00310 |
| January 22, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Kings |
| Sandra J. Feuerstein |
| Ramon E. Reyes |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights 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
187
ORDER: For the reasons stated (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Motions for Reconsideration, DE 182 , 185 , and 186 , respectively, and Plaintiffs 2d Motion for Sanctions, DE 184 , are denied. Defendant M aroulletis motion for sanctions 183 is granted; her attorneys fees application shall be filed and served by June 28, 2016. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, respond to the attorneys fees application, but only to address the amount of th e fee or the billing rate sought. If plaintiff chooses to respond, he shall do so by July 12, 2016.Armatas is directed to show cause on or before July 12, 2016, why an order should not issue enjoining him from filing any new acti on or proceeding against these defendants and their counsel in federal court without first obtaining leave of court. PLAINTIFF IS WARNED THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO RE-LITIGATE HIS CLAIMS IN EITHER (a) RESPONSE TO THE ATTORNEYS FEES APPLICATION OR (b) RES PONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WILL BE MET WITH THE IMPOSITION OF FURTHER MONETARY SANCTIONS. With two (2) exceptions, plaintiffs response to the amounts sought in defendants attorneys fees application and his response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff is barred from filing any additional papers in this case, 08-CV-0310, and any materials received by the Court will be rejected and will not be docketed. So Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 6/21/2016. (Ortiz, Grisel)
|
|
Filing
180
ORDER: SO ORDERED that Plaintiffs Third Motion for Reconsideration, Cross-Motion, and Rule 60(d) Motion are all denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. CM to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 9/21/2015. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
172
ORDER denying 164 Motion for Contempt; denying 167 Motion for Contempt; denying 171 Motion for Reconsideration. SO ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the February 4, 2014 order denying the First Reconsideration Motion is denied. Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt of Gianaris and Motion for Contempt of Defendants are also denied. Maroulleti's and Kestenbaum's cross motion is granted in part and denied in part. Insofar as Maroulleti and Kestenbaum seek attorneys& #039; fees for the Motion for Contempt of Defts, that application is denied. Insofar as Maroulleti and Kestenbaum request that "the Plaintiff be precluded from filing any further motions unless he has first obtained permission of the Court," ; the motion is denied. However, plaintiff is hereby warned that this action is closed and the continued filing of frivolous motions may result in the imposition of sanctions. Insofar as Maroulleti and Kestenbaum seek to renew the K&M Costs Motion, t hat application is granted. Maroulleti and Kestenbaum are entitled to a judgment in the amount of three thousand three dollars and fifty cents ($3,003.50). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 7/24/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
169
ORDER denying 162 Motion for Reconsideration re 141 Clerk's Judgment,, pursuant to Rule 60(b) relief from judgment. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 2/4/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER denying 149 Letter motion for reconsideration of the 148 Order denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions. SO ORDERED that plaintiff has failed to identify any facts or legal authority that the Court overlooked or misapprehended in its October 25, 2011 order. Therefore, plaintiffs motion is denied in its entirety. In accordance with Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties, including mailing a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff, and shall record such service on the docket. CM to pro se plaintiff on 12/13/2011. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 12/13/2011. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the Report is accepted in part in that, (1) City Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety; (2) Maroulleti's summ ary judgment motion is granted as to all claims except the remaining state law claims articulated in the Report; and (3) Plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 10/22/2010. c/m by ecf. (Mahon, Cinthia)
|
|
Filing
130
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment by City Defendants and 95 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Bundled motion - part 1 filed by Elena Maroulleti. For the reasons explained in the R&R, I respectfully recom mend that City Defendants' motion be granted in its entirety and Maroulleti's motion be granted in part and denied in part. In light of the impending trial on October 25, 2010, objections to the R&R are due by or on 10/21/2010. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 10/19/2010. (Lee, Victoria) Modified on 11/22/2010
|
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.
