Shaw v. Long Island Rail Road Company et al
| Aston Shaw |
| Marilyn Kustoff, Long Island Rail Road Company and Metropolitan Transit Authority |
| 1:2016cv06972 |
| December 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Brian M. Cogan |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
59
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 2/7/18 denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration as moot. The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs New York State and New York City Human Rights Claims against both defendants. The claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff asserting them in state court. Plaintiff is to advise the Court within 7 days whether he wishes to go forward on his federal claims now or await the disposition of his state law claims in state court. In light of the Courts decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/7/2018 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
|
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting defendants' 40 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs claims pursuant to NYSHRL § 296 and NYCHRL § 8-107 are dismissed without prejudice to reassertion after compliance with PAL § 1276(1). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 11/21/2017 ) *Forwarded for judgment (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
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.
