Davis v. Brown et al
| Corey Davis |
| Joy Brown and PODS Inc. |
| 1:2012cv01906 |
| April 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Roanne L. Mann |
| Allyne R. Ross |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 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
110
ORDER: SO ORDERED that Browns Motion to Dismiss is denied, except with respect to Daviss claim of intentional negligence, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields to conduct discovery on Dav iss remaining claims against Brown, which is to be completed on or before July 31, 2015. A pretrial telephone conference is scheduled before the undersigned on October 5, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. CM to pro se parties. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 3/31/2015. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER: SO ORDERED that PODS' motion for summary judgment is granted insofar asDavis's claims in the Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and PODS' liability, if any, is limited to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). PODS ' summary judgment motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of Brown's claims in the Cross Complaint. Brown's claims against PODS in the Cross Complaint, which the Court has construed as claims for breach of contract and violatio n of New York Lien Law§ 182, remain pending. Additionally, Brown's Motion to Amend and Davis's Motion to Amend are denied. Brown's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on the Proposed Amended Cross Complaint and Davis's Cross-Mo tion for Summary Judgment on Davis's Second Amended Complaint are denied as moot. The parties are directed to appear before me for a pretrial conference on December 18, 2014 at 11:15 a.m., in Courtroom 1010, located at 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York 11722. Brown and PODS are directed to appear in person. PODS' counsel is directed to make arrangements for Davis to appear via telephone. The parties are advised that failure to appear at that conference may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Rules 16(f) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CM to pro se plaintiff and deft Brown. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 9/15/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Compel: Because defendant Joy Brown has failed to appear in this action, she is not considered a party for purposes of discovery and, accordingly, a motion to compel served by mail is not enforceable. A subpoena is nee ded in this situation. With respect to the plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with a subpoena for documents served on the FBI, plaintiff's motion is denied for the following reasons: (1) There is no proof that the FBI was ever served with the motion to compel; (2) The subpoena is not signed by the Clerk of the Court; (3) Since the place of production is the federal prison in Arizona, the subpoena must issue from the court for the district where production or inspection is to be m ade; (4) The subpoena was served by mail and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) requires personal service; and (5) The FBI acknowledgements of service by mail indicate that service was untimely since compliance would have been due prior to the dates on which the subpoena was served. SEE Order for further details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 5/9/2013. (c/m) (Minerva, Deanna)
|
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.
