Ranta et al v. City of New York et al
| Nicholas Ranta, Patricia Ranta and Priscilla Ranta |
| Stephen Chmil, City of New York, John and Jane Doe Police Officers #1-15, New York City Police Department and Louis Scarcella |
| 1:2014cv03794 |
| June 17, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Joan M. Azrack |
| Sandra L. Townes |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
152
MEMORANDUM and ORDER: The defendants motions 134 & 141 for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs claim for negligent retention and supervision is dismissed; their claims for NEID and Patricias claim for loss of consortium shall proceed. Defendants motion to preclude Kuscsmas testimony is denied without prejudice to their right to renew specific objections in a motion in limine or at trial. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 3/28/2024. (MI)
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM and ORDER: The motions 49 & 52 to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. The claims for IIED are dismissed with prejudice, as are Nicholas and Priscillas claims for loss of consortium. The claims for NIED, Patricias claim for loss of consortium, and the claim for negligent hiring and retention shall proceed. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/26/2020. (Innelli, Michael)
|
|
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM and ORDER: The Court concludes that the most sensible approach in the circumstances is to deny the motions for reconsideration 31 & 32 , grant the motion for leave to amend, and schedule, if need be, a pre-motion conference to discuss w hether the defendants wish to present their arguments in a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Therefore, the plaintiffs shall, within 30 days of this memorandum and order, file and serve an amended complaint alleging whatever state-law claims t hey assert were hampered by the detectives wrongdoing; they should not reallege the federal claims, which have been dismissed. If the defendants are not satisfied with the amended complaint, they may, within 20 days, submit a letter requesting a pre -motion conference and identifying any grounds for a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff may submit a letter in response. Both parties must comply with the Courts individual rules regarding pre-motion conferences and, in particular, must discuss settlement prior to the conference. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/20/2019. (Innelli, Michael)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiffs access-to-courts claim is dismissed. However, the complaint is deemed amended to directly allege the state-law causes of action underlying the access-to-courts claim. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See attached Memorandum and Order for details. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/26/2018. (Innelli, Michael)
|
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.
