Barrella v. Village of Freeport et al
| Christopher Barrella |
| Andrew Hardwick and Village of Freeport |
| 2:2012cv00348 |
| January 25, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| William D. Wall |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| 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
259
DECISION AND ORDER granting 243 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 254 Motion to Stay; The Court grants the Villages motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) to stay execution of the judgments dated May 28, 2014 and August 29, 2014, pending the outcome of the Villages appeal. The stay is only in effect as to the Village, not Hardwick, who neither moved for a stay nor posted a supersedeas bond. The Court grants the Plaintiffs motion for supplemental attorneys fees and costs to the extent he is awarded (1) $37,140 in fees for opposing the Defendants post-trial motions; (2) $18,774 in fees incurred in connection with the fee application; and (3) $6,825 in costs for purchasing the trial transcripts. The total amount awarded to the Plaintiff is $62,739. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 10/29/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
241
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting 206 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part and denying in part 210 Motion to Amend; denying 214 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the alternative for a New Trial; denying 219 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendants Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law. In this regard, the Court finds, among other things, that (1) a reasonable jury could conclude that race pl ayed a motivating factor in Hardwicks decision to appoint Bermudez instead of the Plaintiff to the position of the Chief of Police; (2) Hardwick cannot prevail on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity; and (3) the evidence supported a Monell claim against the Village. The Court also denies the Defendants Rule 59 motions for a new trial. In particular, the Court finds that although it erred in excluding the 2010 U.S. Census from the evidence, that error did not arise to the level warrant ing a new trial. Stated otherwise, the Court is not convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice. The Court further finds that the jury verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Court grants the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs to the extent that the Plaintiff is awarded $661,139 in attorneys fees and $26,612.42 in costs. The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs motion to amend or mold the jury verdict. The Court grants the motion insofar as the Plaintiff is awarded (1) pre-judgment interest on the back pay award of $150,000 to be calculated by the Clerk of the Court at the rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), compounded annually, from August 1, 2012 through the date of the judgment, May 30, 2014; (2) pre-judgment interest on the costs award of $26,612.42, at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), compounded annually, from August 1 , 2012 through the date of the judgment, May 30, 2014; and (3) post-judgment interest on the judgment amount of $1,350,000, plus costs of $26,612.42 from May 30, 2014, at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) compounded annually, until paid. The Court denies the motion insofar as the Plaintiff seeks (1) an upward adjustment of the jury award to account for negative tax consequences and (2) post-judgment interest on the attorneys fees award. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 8/28/2014. C/ECF Judgment Clerk, C.I.. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
152
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion for Summary Judgment - In sum, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants mo tions for summary judgment. In particular, the Court grants the motions as to the Plaintiffs claims based on national origin discrimination and dismisses those claims. Otherwise, the Court denies theDefendants motions for summary judgment. The Court reserves decision on the other pending motions. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/26/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - The Court finds that Judge Wall's order is not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law". Accordingly, the objections to Judge Wall's order quashing the subpoena are denied. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/8/12. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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.
