Anilao et al v. Spota et al
| 2:2010cv00032 |
| January 6, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Denis R. Hurley |
| William D. Wall |
| 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
146
ORDER granting 115 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 117 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the County defendants' m otion for summary judgment. With respect to the Sentosa defendants' summary judgment motion, to the extent that plaintiffs have asserted a Section 1983 conspiracy claim against the Sentosa defendants for conspiring to fabricate evidence in the investigative stage with the County defendants, the motion for summary judgment is granted. However, the Court denies the Sentosa defendants' motion for summary judgment on the malicious prosecution and false arrest claims under federal and state law. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 11/28/2018. (Clarke, Molly)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion to Compel. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 9/30/2015. (Ryan, Mary)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Ord er, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, as to the County defendants, the Court concludes: (1) the individual County defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for conduct taken in their ro le as advocates in connection with the presentation of the case to the Grand Jury; (2) the individual County defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for alleged misconduct during the investigation of plaintiffs, and the Court cannot determin e at the motion to dismiss stage, given the allegations in the Amended Complaint, whether the individual County defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in the investigation phase; (3) plaintiffs have sufficiently pled § 1 983 claims against the individual County defendants for alleged Due Process violations in the investigative stage; and (4) plaintiffs have sufficient pled a claim for municipal liability against the County of Suffolk. As to the defendants Philipson, Luyun, Rubenstein, Sentosa Care, Prompt, and Avalon Gardens, the Court concludes: (1) plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they were acting under color of state law, and (2) plaintiffs have sufficiently pled claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest under both § 1983 and state law, as well as a § 1983 conspiracy claim. As to defendants O'Connor and Fitzgerald, the Court dismisses the claims against them without prejudice for: (1) failure to plead that they were acti ng under color of state law, and (2) failing to satisfy the elements of the state-law malicious prosecution and false arrest claims as to these two individual defendants. Finally, as to the § 1983 conspiracy claim against all defendants, the Co urt finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a claim against all defendants except O'Connor and Fitzgerald, who, as noted supra, were not alleged to have been acting under color of state law for purposes of the § 1983 claims. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/31/2011. (Graves, Kelly)
|
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: Anilao et al v. Spota et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
