United States of America v. City of New York
United States of America |
City of New York |
Roger Gregg, Marcus Haywood, Jamel Nicholson, Candido Nunez, Kevin Simpkins, Vulcan Society, Kevin Walker and Rusebell Wilson |
1:2013cv03123 |
May 30, 2013 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Brooklyn Office |
Raymond J. Dearie |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 27 ORDER granting (1470 in 07-CV-2067) Motion for Final Entry of Intent Stipulation; granting (1551 in 07-CV-2067) Motion for Final Entry of Intent Stipulation. The court has carefully considered Plaintiff-Intervenors' and the City's submissi ons, and all of the objections to the Intent Stipulation. For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum and Order, the court determines that the Intent Stipulation is lawful, fair, reasonable, adequate, consistent with the public interest , and not the product of collusion, and none of the objections thereto has sufficient merit to overcome the presumption of validity accorded to the agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff-Intervenors' First and Second Motions for Final Entry of Intent Stipulation are GRANTED. In a separate docket entry, the court will contemporaneously approve and enter the Intent Stipulation in order to resolve Plaintiff-Intervenors' intentional discrimination claims. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/5/2015. (Day, Lori) |
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.