Gray v. City of New York et al
| Dr. Simpson Gray |
| Esq. Lynn Ameleh, Lawrence Becker, Aderemi Bello, Michael Bloomberg, Rosetta Brownlee, City of New York, Dr. Carolyn Corbett, Helene Crawford, Department of Education "Doe", Gerard Doneggan, Theresa Europe, Denise Hallet, Peter Haney, Esq. Claude Hirsh, Louise Kanion, Joel Klein, Mariam Mahmood-Qureshi, Lorraine Masten, John Mulligan, New York City Department of Education "Doe", Mary Padilla, Stacy Reeves, Myrterlena Rivera, Surita Ryan, Dr. Edna Vega and Robert Wilson |
| 1:2010cv03039 |
| July 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Cheryl L. Pollak |
| Sandra L. Townes |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
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
150
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 7/30/13 that plaintiff's application to renew his application to expedite the deposition of Dr. Williams is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his application if he can provide an affidavit or affirmation fr om someone with personal knowledge of Dr. Williams' condition and capabilities. Since that application relates to discovery, any such renewed application should be addressed to Magistrate Judge Pollak. ( Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 7/30/2013 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
|
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Court finds that plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Pollak's order dated May 29, 2013, are entirely without merit. The deposition of Dr. Charles Williams, noticed for June 20, 2013, will not be held on that d ate. As provided in Judge Pollak's May 29 Order, plaintiff may renew his application for an expedited deposition if he can provide competent evidence that Dr. Williams is no longer working or in good health. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 6/18/2013. (Frullo, Veronica)
|
|
Filing
91
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, For the reasons set forth above, the 74 , 75 , 76 motions brought by Hersh and Almeleh are granted; the City Defts' 87 motion is granted in part and denied in part; and pltff's 78 motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted to the extent set forth herein. The City of NY, Mayor Bloomberg, Joel Klein, Denise Hallett, Theresa Europe, Aderemi Bello, Edna Vega, Helene Crawford, Mary Padilla, Myrterlena Rivera, Claude Hersh and Lynn Almeleh are dismissed from this action. In addition, pltff's Title VII employment discrimination claims and State claims for breach of contract and violation of the NYS Human Rights Law are dismissed in their entirety. Pltff's motion to amend the Complaint is g ranted. Pltff shall file his amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order. The amended complaint, which need not be verified, shall comply with this Court's directives concerning the sec. 1983 claims, see p. 21, an te, and may incorporate the Title VII retaliation claim proposed in pltff's motion papers. However, the amended complaint shall not include the claims or defts dismissed herein. If pltff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, this case may be dismissed without further notice to pltff. (Terminating Pltff's 71 Motion for Extension of Time to File Seconded Amended Complaint). (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/19/2012) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)
|
|
Filing
86
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Defendant Lynn Ameleh and the City Defendants shall have until 8/5/11 in which to serve a reply to plaintiff's Opposition Papers and to file that reply, if any, and their moving papers on ECF. In additional all defendants shall have until 8/5/11 in which to serve and file responses to plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 7/22/2011. C/M to plaintiff. (Manuel, Germaine)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's 59 Third Amended Verified Complaint is stricken. If plaintiff has not yet filed his response to defendants' motions to dismiss in the mistaken belief that it was no longer necessary to do so, plaintiff i s directed to file that response immediately. Plaintiff's 60 "Motion Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for Summary Judgment on the Failure to Perform to Reverse Plaintiff's 5 'U' Ratings as per Post Charge Stipulation of Settlement" is construed as a motion for summary judgment. Since that motion is premature, it is hereby denied without prejudice to renewing it upon completion of discovery. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 5/20/2011. (Manuel, Germaine)
|
|
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: This Court finds that defendants have complied with the requirements of section III.A of this Court's Individual Motion Practices and Rules. Although an extension of plaintiff's time to file his opposition to defendants' motions is not warranted on this ground, this Court notes that it has already extended plaintiff's time to May 13, 2011. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 5/4/2011. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny)
|
|
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, In response to the first of these letters, this Court's Individual Motion Practices and Rules do not require that a pro se litigant seek permission to move to amend his pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the FRCP. Accordin gly, pltff may file a cross-motion if he wishes. While a retaliation claim may not be foreclosed by a determination that the underlying discrimination claim is without merit, a motion to amend pleadings would obviously be moot if the pleadings have a lready been dismissed. Therefore, if pltff wishes to file such a motion, he must file it on or before 5/16/11. Alternatively, pltff may elect to raise the retaliation claim in a separate action. In response to the second of these letters, this Court notes that pre-motion conferences are conducted prior to the setting of a briefing schedule, generally for the purpose of winnowing out motions (or individual arguments) that are either premature or clearly without merit. The fact that a briefing sch edule has been already been set, therefore, implies that this Court has determined that a pre-motion conference is unnecessary or would not be productive. Even if conducted, a pre-motion conference would not assist pltff in "establishing a proce dure for responding to... complex legal issues." If pltff has procedural questions concerning how to respond to defts' motions, he may address these to the Pro Se Office at this Courthouse or call the Pro Se Office at 718-613-2665. Finally, in response to the third of pltff's letters, pltff's time to respond to defts' motions to dismiss is hereby extended to 5/13/11. Defts shall have until 5/27/11, to serve a reply and file all papers relating to the motions. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 4/27/2011) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)
|
|
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall serve and file either his amended complaint or his response to the defendants' motion to dismiss his original complaint on or before 3/4/11. If plaint iff files an amended complaint, the defendants shall have until 3/25/11, in which to amend their motions to dismiss. If plaintiff elects to respond to defendants' motions to dismiss his original complaint, defendants shall have until 3/25/11, in which to serve and file their reply papers. If defendants amend their motion papers, plaintiff shall serve and file his response to those amended motion papers on or before 4/22/11, and defendants shall have until 5/6/11, in which to serve and file their reply. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 2/2/2011. C/M to plaintiff by chambers. (Manuel, Germaine)
|
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.
