Media Alliance, Inc. et al v. Mirch et al
| Media Alliance, Inc. and Stephen C. Pierce |
| Robert Mirch and The City of Troy |
| 1:2009cv00659 |
| June 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Albany Office |
| Rensselaer |
| Lawrence E. Kahn |
| Randolph F. Treece |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
74
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying 57 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion in Limine. ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion in limine (Dkt. No. 67) seeking an Order permitting plaintiff to introduce newspaper articles t o establish a municipal policy is DENIED; it is furtherORDERED, that plaintiffs motion in limine (Dkt. No. 67) seeking an Order permitting plaintiff to introduce non-party testimony from other property owners in the City of Troy is DENIED; it is furt her ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion in limine (Dkt. No. 67) seeking an Order permitting plaintiff to introduce testimony from Bureau of Code Enforcement employees is GRANTED tothe extent discussed in the within Order; it is further ORDERED, that defe ndants motion in limine (Dkt. No. 57) for an order precluding plaintiffs from pursuing an abuse of process claim and substantive due process claim for failure to state a claim is DENIED; it is further ORDERED, that defendants motion in limine (Dkt. No. 57) for an order dismissing plaintiffs abuse of process claim pursuant to the statute of limitations is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 1/19/12. (ban)
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.33 ) dismissing plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs Equal Protection claims is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs Due Process claims is DE NIED; it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs third cause of action for relief pursuant to the New York State Constitution is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs fourth cause of action is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs punitive damages claim against Mirch in his individual ca pacity is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) dismissing plaintiffs complaint is otherwise DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that a Settlement Conference is scheduled in this matter for October 6, 2011 at 10:00 AM. The parties are directed to appear at that time and make submissions in advance of the conference as directed in this Courts Order Setting Settlement Conference. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 8/2/11. (ban)
|
|
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: Granting 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint; and amending the 13 Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: (1) discovery deadline is 11/18/2010; (2) final day to file dispositive motions is 1/13/2011; (3) trial ready date is 4/20/2011; and (4) trial date is 5/15/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece on 6/24/2010. (sg )
|
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 Northern 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.
