Dechbery v. New York City Fire Department

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Dechbery v. New York City Fire Department

Dechbery v. New York City Fire Department

Plaintiff:	Eileen Dechbery
Defendant:	New York City Fire Department
Case Number:	1:2014cv02130
Filed:	April 2, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Joan M. Azrack
Presiding Judge:	Kiyo A. Matsumoto
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 22, 2015	Filing 42 ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 38 is DENIED. Plaintiff is, however, granted one last opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before January 4, 2016, or her action will be dismissed in its entirety. Barring extraordinary c ircumstances, no extensions will be permitted. Plaintiff's amended complaint, if any, must comply with the court's 8/14/15 Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and note service on the docket. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/22/2015. (Jacobson, Jonathan)
August 14, 2015	Filing 31 ORDER granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. For reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's Title VII, ADA, and NYCHRL discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims that pre-date August 21, 2012 ar e dismissed with prejudice as time-barred or because they were included in the Settlement Agreement dated July 13, 2012 in plaintiff's prior federal lawsuit, and the remaining claims of discrimination on the basis of sex and age, retaliation, ho stile work environment, and due process are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court grants plaintiff fourteen (14) days to amend her complaint with respect to her Title VII discrimination, ADA discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claim in a manner consistent with this decision. See Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)) (A pro se complaint "should not [be ] dismiss[ed] without [the Court] granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated."). Plaintiff may not replead claims that are barred by her prior July 13, 2 012 settlement of her prior federal action and/or the statute of limitations prior to August 21, 2012. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint does not simply add to the first complaint. Once an amended complaint is filed, it completely repl aces the original. Therefore, it is important that plaintiff include in the amended complaint all the necessary information that was contained in the original complaint, except that she should not include claims pre-dating August 21, 2012, as those claims are barred by her Settlement Agreement, General Release, and the 300 day filing rule. Moreover, plaintiff shall not include her termination without due process claims as that claim fails as a matter of law. The amended complaint must be capt ioned as an "Amended Complaint," and bear the same docket number as this Order. Because the court has provided plaintiff ample opportunity to prosecute her claims, failure to comply with the courts order will result in dismissal of plainti ff's entire action with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve of a copy of this Order on plaintiff and note service on the docket by August 18, 2015. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/14/2015. (Tsay, Stephanie)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 22, 2015

Filing 42 ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 38 is DENIED. Plaintiff is, however, granted one last opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before January 4, 2016, or her action will be dismissed in its entirety. Barring extraordinary c ircumstances, no extensions will be permitted. Plaintiff's amended complaint, if any, must comply with the court's 8/14/15 Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and note service on the docket. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/22/2015. (Jacobson, Jonathan)

August 14, 2015

Filing 31 ORDER granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. For reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's Title VII, ADA, and NYCHRL discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims that pre-date August 21, 2012 ar e dismissed with prejudice as time-barred or because they were included in the Settlement Agreement dated July 13, 2012 in plaintiff's prior federal lawsuit, and the remaining claims of discrimination on the basis of sex and age, retaliation, ho stile work environment, and due process are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court grants plaintiff fourteen (14) days to amend her complaint with respect to her Title VII discrimination, ADA discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claim in a manner consistent with this decision. See Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)) (A pro se complaint "should not [be ] dismiss[ed] without [the Court] granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated."). Plaintiff may not replead claims that are barred by her prior July 13, 2 012 settlement of her prior federal action and/or the statute of limitations prior to August 21, 2012. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint does not simply add to the first complaint. Once an amended complaint is filed, it completely repl aces the original. Therefore, it is important that plaintiff include in the amended complaint all the necessary information that was contained in the original complaint, except that she should not include claims pre-dating August 21, 2012, as those claims are barred by her Settlement Agreement, General Release, and the 300 day filing rule. Moreover, plaintiff shall not include her termination without due process claims as that claim fails as a matter of law. The amended complaint must be capt ioned as an "Amended Complaint," and bear the same docket number as this Order. Because the court has provided plaintiff ample opportunity to prosecute her claims, failure to comply with the courts order will result in dismissal of plainti ff's entire action with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve of a copy of this Order on plaintiff and note service on the docket by August 18, 2015. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/14/2015. (Tsay, Stephanie)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Dechbery v. New York City Fire Department
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Eileen Dechbery
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: New York City Fire Department
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?