Guadagni v. New York City Transit Authority et al
| Louis Guadagni |
| New York City Transit Authority, New York City Transit Authority Police Department, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" |
| 1:2008cv03163 |
| August 4, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Kings |
| Steven M. Gold |
| Charles P. Sifton |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1441 Notice of Removal |
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
34
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting the defendants motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton on 6/29/2009. (Sifton, Charles)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the decision dated January 27, 2009 granting defendant Transit Authority's motion for dismissal. Ordered by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton on 3/19/2009. (Sifton, Charles)
|
|
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Ordered by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/27/2009. (Sifton, Charles)Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and defendant's remaining motions are denied as moot. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days of the filing of this memorandum opinion.
|
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.
