Balk v. New York Institute of Technology et al
| Dennis Balk |
| Infotec Corporation and New York Institute of Technology |
| 2:2011cv00509 |
| February 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
222
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Balk's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion [Dkt. No. 217]. (As further set forth in this Order) Ordered by Visiting Judge VJ-Shira Ann Scheindlin on 11/9/2015. (DelSignore, Angela)
|
|
Filing
211
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, defendant NYIT's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in full and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in full. Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eig hth, and Ninth Claims are dismissed against NYIT, and NYIT is dismissed from this case. Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Claims survive to the extent that they are asserted against other defendants. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these motions (Docket Nos. 172 and 180). (As further set forth within this Opinion.) Ordered by Magistrate Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/16/2015. (DelSignore, Angela)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER granting 153 Motion for Hearing; ORDER re 113 Letter MOTION for pre motion conference concerning request for modification of the March 30, 2012 deadline for the joinder of additional parties and amendment of pleadings and for leave to file Plaintiff's proposed Third Amended Complaint add filed by Dennis Balk. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 3/24/2014. Plaintiff's motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Specifically, Plaintiff may serve a Third Amended Complaint adding Dr. Mohamed Y. Hussein as a named Defendant on an alter ego liability theory for conspiracy to defraud. Plaintiff's motion to add claims against Dr. Hussein under Title VI I and for intentional interference with contractual rights is DENIED. Plaintiff is directed to file a copy of the Third Amended Complaint on ECF within ten (10) days and to serve Dr. Hussein in the manner set forth in the Federal Rules. Plaintiff is required to file on ECF proof of such service upon Dr. Hussein. The parties are directed to appear in Courtroom 910 for a Status Conference on April 28, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss any remaining discovery issues outlined in Plaintiff's letter of January 10, 2014 [DE 153]. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for additional information. (Rizvi, Asad)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 102 Motion to Compel. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel the appearance of Dr. Mohammed Hussein for a deposition in New York at the Law Offices of Ridley M. Whitaker, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff. SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 9/30/2013. (Rizvi, Asad) Modified on 10/1/2013 to correct order date (Ryan, Mary).
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER granting 110 Motion to Compel. The Court directs Dr. Vogt to appear again for the continuation of his deposition. See attached Order for additional details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 11/19/2012. (Sofio, Lisa)
|
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.
