Gardner v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Gardner v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Gardner v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Plaintiff:	Helen T Gardner
Defendant:	Verizon Communications Inc.
Case Number:	1:2016cv00814
Filed:	February 17, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Robert M. Levy
Presiding Judge:	Roslynn R. Mauskopf
Nature of Suit:	Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
March 26, 2018	Filing 68 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 39 Motion for Leave to File; denying 43 Motion for Leave to File; denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 57 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 63 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reas ons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order,Gardners motions for leave to file an amended complaint, for reconsideration, for a transcript of proceedings, and for summary judgment are denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to pro se plaintiff Gardner at the address listed for her on the docket, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/26/2018. (Wechsler, Simon)
March 17, 2017	Filing 31 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Verizon's motion to dismiss Gardner's claims twothrough four and Gardner's claims for compensatory and punitive damages is granted. (Doc. No. 19 ). Moreover, Gardner's propose d amended complaint fails to allege claims upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, Gardner's motion to amend her complaint to include statutory penalties and fines is denied. (Doc. Nos. 17 , 19 -6). However, Gardner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to seek leave to amend her complaint consistent with this Court's ruling. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good fai th, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 ( 1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to plaintiff Helen T. Gardner, pro se, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/17/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 26, 2018

Filing 68 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 39 Motion for Leave to File; denying 43 Motion for Leave to File; denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 57 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 63 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reas ons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order,Gardners motions for leave to file an amended complaint, for reconsideration, for a transcript of proceedings, and for summary judgment are denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to pro se plaintiff Gardner at the address listed for her on the docket, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/26/2018. (Wechsler, Simon)

March 17, 2017

Filing 31 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Verizon's motion to dismiss Gardner's claims twothrough four and Gardner's claims for compensatory and punitive damages is granted. (Doc. No. 19 ). Moreover, Gardner's propose d amended complaint fails to allege claims upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, Gardner's motion to amend her complaint to include statutory penalties and fines is denied. (Doc. Nos. 17 , 19 -6). However, Gardner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to seek leave to amend her complaint consistent with this Court's ruling. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good fai th, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 ( 1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to plaintiff Helen T. Gardner, pro se, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/17/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

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: Gardner v. Verizon Communications Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Helen T Gardner
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: Verizon Communications Inc.
Represented By:	Randi F. Knepper
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?