Pouncie v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Kedaya Pouncie
Defendant: Steven Ostrovsky, Roni Ostrovsky, Linda King, Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. and John Does #1-10
Case Number: 1:2018cv06221
Filed: November 2, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Roanne L Mann
Referring Judge: Allyne R Ross
Nature of Suit: Labor: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 19, 2018 Opinion or Order ORDER. There being no objection from plaintiff, this case is stayed pending a decision from the New York Court of Appeals on the continued viability of the 13-hour rule. The parties shall promptly notify the Court, via ECF, once that decision issues. Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/19/2018. (Kelson, Lise)
November 16, 2018 Filing 7 Letter indicating no objection to stay of case pending decision by NY Court of Appeals of the Andryeyeva and Moreno Appeals by Kedaya Pouncie (Rand, William)
November 13, 2018 ELECTRONIC ORDER: This case has been reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge as related to Matala-De-Mazza v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc., 16-CV-1185(ARR)(RLM). The December 7, 2018 initial conference is adjourned sine die. Plaintiff is directed to show cause, via ECF, by November 16, 2018, why this case, like the Matala-De-Mazza case, should not be stayed pending a decision from the New York Court of Appeals on the continued validity of the 13-hour rule. See Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 153 A.D.3d 1216 (2d Dep't 2017); Moreno v. Future Care Health Servs., Inc., 153 A.D.3d 1254 (2d Dep't 2017). So Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/13/2018. (Cardenas, Alex)
November 9, 2018 Opinion or Order ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein no longer assigned to case Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such.. Ordered by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 11/9/2018. (Bowens, Priscilla)
November 7, 2018 Filing 6 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Linda King, Roni Ostrovsky, Steven Ostrovsky, Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Joint Stipulation and Order Granting Defendants' Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond) (Reibstein, Richard)
November 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 5 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a), I order the parties to appear for an initial discovery planning conference on, December 7, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11D South of the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. No later than December 5, 2018, the parties must submit, by means of electronic filing on the court's ECF (Electronic Case Filing) system, a joint proposed discovery plan. Each party's counsel must be personally prepared to discuss all factual and legal issues in the case, including the possibility of settlement; otherwise, the client must attend in person as well. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 11/7/2018. (Guy, Alicia)
November 7, 2018 Opinion or Order ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer -- The motion is granted, and the stipulation is so ordered. The defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by November 30, 2018. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 11/7/2018. (Gustafson, Kaelyn)
November 5, 2018 Filing 4 Notice of Related Case (Davis, Kimberly)
November 5, 2018 Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly)
November 5, 2018 Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly)
November 5, 2018 Case Assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly)
November 2, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Linda King, Roni Ostrovsky, Steven Ostrovsky, Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. from New York Supreme Court, Kings County, case number 519317/2018. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number NYEDC-10902383) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Ex. A - State Court Summons and Complaint, #3 Exhibit Ex. B - State Court Affidavit of Service, #4 Exhibit Ex. C - Declaration of Steven Ostrovsky with Exhibit) (Reibstein, Richard)

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: Pouncie v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kedaya Pouncie
Represented By: William C. Rand
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: Steven Ostrovsky
Represented By: Richard J. Reibstein
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: Roni Ostrovsky
Represented By: Richard J. Reibstein
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: Linda King
Represented By: Richard J. Reibstein
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: Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc.
Represented By: Richard J. Reibstein
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: John Does #1-10
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?