Razzoli v. USDA
| Kevin Razzoli |
| USDA |
| 1:2022cv07204 |
| November 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Ann M Donnelly |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 07 U.S.C. ยง 499 Agricultural Commodities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The plaintiff does not identify a clear error in my December 2022 order, an intervening change of controlling law or any new evidence. Accordingly, the #12 motion to reopen is denied. The case remains closed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at the address he provided and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 1/20/2023. (DG)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Reopen Case /Set aside ruling by Kevin Razzoli. (JC) |
| APPEAL FILING FEE DUE re #10 Notice of Appeal Payment in the amount of $505.00, can be made in person to the clerks office, or mailed in or paid online with the event Civil Case Appeal Filing Fee. (VJ) |
| Electronic Index to Record on Appeal sent to US Court of Appeals. #10 Notice of Appeal Documents are available via Pacer. For docket entries without a hyperlink or for documents under seal, contact the court and we'll arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (VJ) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #9 Clerk's Judgment, by Kevin Razzoli. No Fee Paid. (VJ) |
| Filing 9 CLERK'S JUDGMENT dated 12/28/22 that that plaintiff's PACA appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); that all other claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue and because they are frivolous, See id.; 28:1406(a); Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 363 64; that the plaintiffs request for a hearing is denied; that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; and that in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). ( Ordered by Jalitza Poveda, Deputy Clerk on behalf of Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court on 12/28/2022 ) c/m w/appeals pkg. |
| Filing 11 Letter DATED 12/21/2022 TO THE CLERK/ JUDGE ASSIGNED FROM Kevin Razzoli regarding theft of files. (JC) |
|
Filing 8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The plaintiff's PACA appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). All other claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue and because they are frivolous. See id.; 28 U.S.C. 1406(a); Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 36364.The plaintiff's request for a hearing (ECF No. 5) is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and enter judgment. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk is also respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at the address he provided and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 12/19/2022. (DG)
|
| Filing 7 Brief in Support "challenge to PACA Decision Pursuant to 7 USC 499a et seq." filed by Kevin Razzoli, plaintiff pro se. (RG) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Kevin Razzoli. USDA served on 11/28/2022, answer due 1/27/2023. (TL) |
| Filing 5 Letter dated 12/1/22 from Kevin Razzoli, plaintiff pro se Requesting a hearing date be scheduled before December 19, 2022. (RG) |
| Filing 4 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. (KD) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to USDA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (KD) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 100003131 (KD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USDA, filed by Kevin Razzoli. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (KD) |
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: Razzoli v. USDA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kevin Razzoli | |
| 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: USDA | |
| 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.
