Hamel v. USIC Locating Services, LLC
| Michael Hamel |
| USIC Locating Services, LLC |
| 2:2021cv06487 |
| November 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Gary R Brown |
| Steven I Locke |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: In light of the settlement in principle this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to its reinstatement should the settlement not be consummated. Barring any further requests for an extension within 90 days of this order, this dismissal shall deemed with prejudice.Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 1/19/2022. (McMorrow, Karen)
|
| Filing 9 Letter Notifying Court of Settlement by USIC Locating Services, LLC (Ventry-Kagan, Amy) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by USIC Locating Services, LLC. USIC Locating Services, LLC waiver sent on 11/22/2021, answer due 1/21/2022. (Ventry-Kagan, Amy) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Amy Laura Ventry-Kagan on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Ventry-Kagan, Amy) |
| Filing 6 Letter Pursuant to Order to Show Cause by Michael Hamel (Frank, Joshua) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. "In order to make out a case for the denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1), a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is an eligible employee under the FMLA, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(2); (2) the defendant is an employer under the FMLA, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(4); (3) he was entitled to take leave under the FMLA, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1); (4) he gave notice to the defendant of his intention to take leave, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2612(e)(1) and 29 C.F.R. 825.302.303; and (5) the defendant denied him the benefits to which he was entitled under the FMLA." Belgrave v. City of New York, No. 95-CV-1507 (JG), 1999 WL 692034, at *43 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 1999), aff'd sub nom. Belgrave v. New York City, 216 F.3d 1071 (2d Cir. 2000); see 29 U.S.C. 2611(4) (defining "employer" as "any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees...."). The plaintiff in this case has failed to set forth allegations with sufficient specificity as to the number of employees employed by defendant. See Pesok v. Hebrew Union Coll.--Jewish Inst. of Religion, 235 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. Pesok v. Lutwak, 86 F. App'x 479 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing FMLA claim where "plaintiff has not alleged any facts with regard to" whether defendant was "a covered employer"). Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing what grounds they have, if any, as to why defendant is subject to claims under the FMLA. Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 11/23/2021. c/ecf (Cowan, Timothy)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to USIC Locating Services, LLC. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Gary R. Brown and Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Jakubowski, Laura) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons.Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Complaint by Michael Hamel (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Frank, Joshua) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USIC Locating Services, LLC filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15049642 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Michael Hamel. (Frank, Joshua) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Hamel v. USIC Locating Services, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Michael Hamel | |
| Represented By: | Joshua Paul Frank |
| 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: USIC Locating Services, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Amy Laura Ventry-Kagan |
| 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.
