Scoma v. City of New York et al
| John Scoma |
| Azeem Chatha, City of New York and John and Jane Doe 1-10 |
| 1:2016cv06693 |
| December 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| Cheryl L. Pollak |
| 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
129
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 96 , 97 Motions in Limine. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court grants in part and denies in part the parties' motions in limine. The court also rules on the part ies' respective objections to the trial exhibits, but reserves decision for the Final Pretrial Conference and trial as to some of the objections. Prior to the Final Pretrial Conference, the parties must confer to attempt to resolve their remaini ng evidentiary disputes and shall come prepared to offer proof as to those disputed exhibits. The parties are reminded to bring their final trial exhibit binders to the Final Pretrial Conference. The court reiterates its recommendation that the parti es attempt to resolve the case before noon on May 7, 2021. The court further grants defendants' 99 Motion for Leave to File, with plaintiff's consent. The court denies defendants' 123 Motion to Strike a portion of plaintiff 's reply brief. The court does not condone plaintiff's failure to adhere to the court's motion practices, but the court did not rely on the plaintiff's excessive pages in the reply brief in reaching its decision. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 5/4/2021. (Tran, Alexander)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 80 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's claims for excessive force as to Officer Allende's use of the taser under section 1983, and is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's claim for excessive force as to the Officer' actions during attempts to handcuff plaintiff or after plaintiff was handcuffed; and (2) Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's municipal liability claim; and(3) Defendants' motion is GRANT ED with respect to plaintiff's state claim for assault and battery as to Officer Allende's use of the taser under section 1983, and is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's state claim for assault and battery as to the Officers' acti ons while applying handcuffs or after plaintiff was handcuffed; and (4) Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claim under Section 12 of the New York Constitution.The parties are respectfully directed to submit a jo int letter no later than February 12, 2021, advising the court as to how they intend to proceed. The Court encourages that parties to engage in good faith settlement discussions. The Court further grants defendants' 79 Motion to Amend/C orrect/Supplement and waives the requirement of courtesy copies, and grants defendants' 86 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement to include Exhibit L, an excerpt of Department of Justice CED (Conducted Energy Devices) Guidelines, which was timely served on plaintiff with the original moving papers on March 3, 2020. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 1/22/2021. (Tran, Alexander)
|
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.
