Ostrowski v. The Port Authority of NY & NJ
| Bogdan Ostrowski |
| The Port Authority of NY & NJ |
| 1:2021cv03328 |
| June 14, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Kiyo A Matsumoto |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 621 Job Discrimination (Age) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER: Pro se plaintiff moves for reconsideration of my Order, ECF No. 13, which granted defendants' request for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint from August 19, 2021 to September 3, 2021. ECF No. 14. The request is denied. First requests for an extension are generally granted as a courtesy and the additional 15 days of time afforded to respond will not prejudice plaintiff's case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 7/15/2021. (Wilhelm, Samantha)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Motion re: Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time by Bogdan Ostrowski. (Tavarez, Jennifer) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER: Defendant requests to substitute counsel. ECF No. 12. The request is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to substitute attorneys Karla Denalli and Alba Rodriguez-Betances for attorney Kathleen Gill Miller as counsel for defendant. Defendant also moves for reconsideration of my Order, ECF No. 9, which granted in part and denied in part defendant's request for a 60-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint, ECF No 8. ECF No. 12. In support of its request, defendant states that the complaint and attachments filed by plaintiff total 1,424 pages. Defendant's request for reconsideration is granted. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's complaint by September 3, 2021. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 7/1/2021. (Wilhelm, Samantha)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re #9 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, by The Port Authority of NY & NJ. (Denalli, Karla) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Alba Rodriguez-Betances on behalf of The Port Authority of NY & NJ (aty to be noticed) (Rodriguez-Betances, Alba) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Karla D. Denalli on behalf of The Port Authority of NY & NJ (aty to be noticed) (Denalli, Karla) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: Defendant requests a 60-day extension of time to respond to pro se plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 8. Defendant reports that it attempted to contact plaintiff to seek his consent but was unable to reach him. The request is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's complaint by August 19, 2021. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 6/24/2021. (Wilhelm, Samantha)
|
| Filing 8 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, by The Port Authority of NY & NJ. (Miller, Kathleen) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Gill Miller on behalf of The Port Authority of NY & NJ (aty to be noticed) (Miller, Kathleen) |
| Filing 6 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) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bogdan Ostrowski. The Port Authority of NY & NJ served on 6/14/2021, answer due 7/5/2021. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to The Port Authority of NY & NJ. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 3 Pro Se Consent to Electronic Notification by Bogdan Ostrowski (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 4653157781 (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against The Port Authority of NY & NJ, filed by Bogdan Ostrowski. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, #12 Exhibit 11) (Davis, Kimberly) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Ostrowski v. The Port Authority of NY & NJ | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The Port Authority of NY & NJ | |
| Represented By: | Karla D. Denalli |
| Represented By: | Kathleen Gill Miller |
| Represented By: | Alba Rodriguez-Betances |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Bogdan Ostrowski | |
| 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.
