Garnet v. Ramos Brothers Inc
Plaintiff: Edward Garnet
Defendant: Ramos Brothers Inc
Case Number: 1:2016cv02792
Filed: June 1, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Lois Bloom
Presiding Judge: Raymond J. Dearie
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER: The Court adopts the recommendation of Magistrate Bloom. Motion is denied. Plaintiff may amend his complaint within 20 days. 2/14/2017 (Brown, Marc).
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: Garnet v. Ramos Brothers Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edward Garnet
Represented By: Stuart H. Finkelstein
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: Ramos Brothers Inc
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?