Fahs Construction Group, Inc. v. Gray et al
Fahs Construction Group, Inc. |
Timothy Farrell, Michael Gray, John Van Auken, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4 and John Doe No. 5 |
3:2010cv00129 |
February 3, 2010 |
US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
Binghamton Office |
Broome |
Thomas J. McAvoy |
David E. Peebles |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 65 JUDGMENT in favor of Michael Gray, John Van Auken, Timothy Farrell and John Does 1 through 5 against Fahs Construction Group, Inc.. (lmw) |
Filing 38 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER granting # 31 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first claim for relief in its Amended Complaint and all of Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants in their official capacities. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/12/12. (lmw) |
Filing 24 DECISION AND ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendants' # 13 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's equal protection claim against all Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice, Plaintiffs retaliation claim and conspiracy claim agai nst Defendants Van Auken, Farrell, and all of the John Doe Defendants (as referenced in the Complaint) are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's retaliation and conspiracy claims against Defendant Gray survive Defendants motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/27/2011. (mae) |
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.