Padro et al v. Astrue
| Dhanasar Raman, Lorraine Padro, John Edwards, Ernesta Gutierrez, Julia Juan, Toby Marlow, Jane Doe and Carmen Duran |
| Michael J. Astrue |
| 1:2011cv01788 |
| April 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Carol Bagley Amon |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID) |
| None |
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
226
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Court finds the class action settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement and entry of final judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close this case. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 10/17/2013. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)
|
|
Filing
126
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In reviewing an R&R, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(C). Where, as here, no party has timely objected, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" to adopt the R&R of a magistrate judge. Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error and adopts Magistrate Judge Mann's well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the motion to intervene is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 3/21/2013. (Fernandez, Erica)
|
|
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re Pre Motion Conference, 12 Response to Motion filed by Julia Juan, Ernesta Gutierrez, Jane Doe, Carmen Duran, John Edwards, Dhanasar Raman, Lorraine Padro, Toby Marlow, 13 Letter filed by Julia Juan, Ernesta Gutierrez, Jane Doe, Carmen Duran, John Edwards, Dhanasar Raman, Lorraine Padro, Toby Marlow. For the reasons state in the Memorandum and Order, the Court is prepared to adopt the parties' proposed schedule for briefing defendants motion to dismiss, a separate, tighter schedule will be set for the parties to address plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery. The parties are reminded that before presenting any discovery dispute to the Court, they are required to confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve or at least narrow that dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); SDNY/EDNY Local Civ. R. 37.3(a). To the extent that the parties are unable to resolve completely the issue of expedited discovery, they shall present the ir positions in letter-briefs pursuant to the following schedule: plaintiffs' submission shall be filed by September 1, 2011; defendant's opposition submission shall be filed by September 8, 2011; plaintiffs' reply is due by September 12, 2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 8/16/2011. (Maynard, Pat)
|
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.
