Amaya v. Ballyshear LLC et al
| Nelly Amaya |
| Ballyshear LLC, Diana Gubelli, Steve Kaczynski and Marika Sygman |
| 2:2017cv01596 |
| March 21, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Gary R. Brown |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| 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
139
ADOPTION ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 102 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 103 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations as to 132 Report and Recommendations. For the stated reasons, IT IS H EREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to mark this case CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/22/2023. (CV)
|
|
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 44 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated above, the Defendants motion to partially dismiss the SAC and to strike certain factual allegations in the SAC, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(f), is grant ed. The Plaintiff is directed to file a Third Amended Complaint that (1) strikes paragraphs 30, 32, 41-43, 47, 55, 64, 67-69, 83, 88, 93, 127-28, 133-34, 136, 138-39, 142, 148 and 152 from the SAC; (2) reverts paragraphs 1, 73, 86, 123-26 and 140 to their form in the First Amended Complaint; and (3) revises her § 1981 and NYSHRL causes of action to only include claims relevant to a workplace retaliation and hostile work environment theory. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/20/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants 30 motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiff' s first and second causes of actions are dismissed. The Plaintiff is precluded from advancing a wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge or constructive discharge theory pursuant to § 1981 or the NYSHRL against the Defendants. Further, the Pl aintiff is also precluded from advancing a claim under the NYCHRL. It is denied to the extent that the Plaintiffs fifth cause of action may proceed and the Plaintiff may advance a hostile work environment theory against all the Defendants pursuant to the NYSHRL (Claim 3); a workplace retaliation theory against all the Defendants pursuant to the NYSHRL (Claim 4); and a hostile work environment and retaliatory workplace theory against all the Defendants pursuant to § 1981 (Claim 6). SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/14/2018. (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.
