Walia v. Napolitano

Walia v. Napolitano

Plaintiff:	Sunil Walia
Defendant:	Janet Napolitano
Case Number:	2:2011cv02512
Filed:	May 25, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arlene R. Lindsay
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 4, 2014	Filing 85 ORDER - The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's 76 motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum and Order dated December 2, 2013. The Court clarifies that order to the extent it makes clear that claims relating to events occurring on or after June 20, 2010 remain a part of the Plaintiff's Title VII claim. The Court otherwise denies reconsideration. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/4/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
December 2, 2013	Filing 72 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; It is hereby: ORDERED, that that part of the DHSs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Title VII claim is granted and that claim is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the part of the DHSs motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is granted and those claims are dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the DHSs motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs Privacy Act claim is denied. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/2/13. (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 4, 2014

Filing 85 ORDER - The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's 76 motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum and Order dated December 2, 2013. The Court clarifies that order to the extent it makes clear that claims relating to events occurring on or after June 20, 2010 remain a part of the Plaintiff's Title VII claim. The Court otherwise denies reconsideration. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/4/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)

December 2, 2013

Filing 72 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; It is hereby: ORDERED, that that part of the DHSs motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the Title VII claim is granted and that claim is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the part of the DHSs motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is granted and those claims are dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the DHSs motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs Privacy Act claim is denied. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/2/13. (Coleman, Laurie)

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 this case: Walia v. Napolitano
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sunil Walia
Represented By:	Louis D. Stober, Jr.
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: Janet Napolitano
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.

Why Is My Information Online?