MacPherson et al v. Town Of Southampton et al
| Donald C. MacPherson, 10 Bathing Beach Co., Inc. and 16 Bathing Beach Co.,Inc. |
| Town Of Southampton, Southampton Town Board, Stephen A. Frano, The Honorable Justices Of The Southampton Town Justice Court and Does 1-5 |
| 2:2007cv03497 |
| August 22, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Suffolk |
| Denis R. Hurley |
| Michael L. Orenstein |
| 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
57
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Town Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this decision by December 16, 2013. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 11/14/2013. (O'Connor, Madeline)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER: The motion by the Justices to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Accordingly, as against the Justices only, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed. The Justices' motion for sanctions is denied. Plaintiffs shall advise the Court, via letter to be filed on or before October 14, 2009, whether or not they intend to move for leave to amend. See attached Memorandum & Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Denis R. Hurley on 9/30/2009.
|
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.
