United States Of, et al v. District Council Of, et al
Case Number: 1:1990cv05722
Filed: September 6, 1990
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Haight
Presiding Judge: Theodore H. Katz
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 1897 ORDER The Court declines to hold a conference at this time. The issues raised by the members regarding the union can be addressed at a future proceeding regarding the Governments forthcoming proposed stipulation relating to the future of the consent decree and monitorship. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/8/2024) (jca)
April 26, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 1895 ORDER granting 1894 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Request GRANTED. The above-referenced deadline is hereby extended to May 7, 2024. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/26/2024) (jca)
April 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 1893 ORDER The Court has received an undated letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, written "pursuant to a motion passed at the March meeting of Local 157 requesting an open status meeting with" the Court, a n Assistant United States Attorney, the Independent Monitor, the New York City District Council of Carpenters, and the members of the District Council. The Independent Monitor, the Government, and any other interested party are hereby ORDERED to r espond within seven (7)days to the request in the letter. Each party shall state its understanding regarding what prompted the request and what would be the purpose of any court proceeding. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/23/2024) (jca)
June 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1859 ORDER granting 1858 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The request is granted. The Seventh Interim Report may be submitted in December 2021, as proposed above. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 6/14/2021) (js)
September 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 1569 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons herein, the Court, on remand, denies the applications of Mssrs. Nee [Dkt. # 1166] and Messinetti [Dkt. # 1193], dated July 23, 2012 and July 24, 2012, respectively, to vacate the RO's vetos of their (prior) service as delegates and officers of Local 157. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 9/10/2014) (kgo) (Main Document 1569 replaced on 9/10/2014) (kgo).
July 15, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 1546 OPINION & ORDER: Having reviewed the record herein, including (i) the Consent Decree... the Court respectfully responds to Ms. Rusek-Zoilkowski's application, as follows: The Court is not empowered to consider Ms. Rusek- Ziolkowski's applic ation which contests the Board of Trustees' denial of her late husband's application for deferred pension benefits, because, "[i]n the case at bar, the Court is concerned only with the proper implementation of the Consent Decree," ... In her application, Ms. Rusek-Ziolkowski does not describe racketeering activity, but only that the Board of Trustees determined that her late husband was ineligible for certain pension benefits... ("[The] Court in this litigation does no t have plenary jurisdiction to consider all issues that might arise under the Federal labor laws with respect to the conduct of the UBC vis-a-vis the District Council and its constituent locals."). The Court, therefore, respectfully denies Ms. Rusek-Ziolkowski's application. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/15/2014) (ja)
March 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 1489 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court respectfully denies Mr. Walsh's application for reconsideration, as follows: The Court has not found, and in his letter to the Court Mr. Walsh does not identify, "controlling decisions or data that the [C]ourt o verlooked" in its January 8, 2014 Decision and Order, as would warrant granting a motion for reconsideration... The Court, therefore, concludes that Mr. Walsh's application for reconsideration should be denied. See Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009)(motion for reconsideration "should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)). (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 3/3/2014) (ja)
January 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 1465 OPINION & ORDER: The Court concludes as follows: The Court is not empowered to consider Mr. Walsh's application as part of the above-captioned case, in which he objects to a decision of Douglas McCarron, the General President of the United Bro therhood of Carpenters ("UBC"), dated October 9, 2013, ruling him ineligible to serve as a delegate to the District Council, and asks the Court to "reinstate me to my fairly elected position as Delegate." (Letter from William Wals h to Hon. Richard M. Berman, dated Dec. 31, 2013.) Rather, the Court's authority in this case is limited to the enforcement and implementation of the Consent Order and subsequent orders entered by the Court. United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, 972 F. Supp. 756, 763 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("In the case at bar, the Court is concerned only with the proper implementation of the Consent Decree."). (See Stip. & Order paragraph 12(g).) Neither the Consent Order nor the Stipulation and Order implicates actions taken by the UBC or the interpretation of its constitution by UBC officers. United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, 972 F. Supp. 756, 760-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)("The Consent Decree says nothing about the UBC&# 039;s powers to act under its constitution, by-laws, and the Federal labor laws; nor was there a basis in law for doing so."); U.S. v. District Council of New York City, No. 90 Civ. 5722, 2007 WL 2728984, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2007) ("T his Court's limited jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating alleged violations of the UBC Constitution."). (See Stip. & Order paragraph 2 ("The Court has authority to enter this Stipulation and Order pursuant to its inherent power, including the inherent power to enforce, ensure compliance with, and modify the Consent Decree.").) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/8/2014) (mro)
January 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 1463 OPINION & ORDER: The Courtconcludes as follows: The special election for Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the District Council ("EST"), to be held on January 24, 2014, may proceed as currently scheduled. The election process is in accordan ce with the procedures approved by the Court on August 15, 2013, (Order, dated Aug. 15, 2013), and reflects a valid exercise of the RO's authority to "supervise all phases of any union election conducted by the District Council during his t enure, and to certify the results of any such election." (Stip. & Order paragraph 5(k)(i).) See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, 880 F. Supp. 1051, 1065 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("[B]ased on the intent of the parties, and the defini tion of 'supervise' under Title IV of the LMRDA, the IRO's power to 'supervise' the District Council election authorizes him to not only draft rules for how the election should be conducted, but to implement those rules by vesting within his own physical control the conduct of the election process."); as further set forth herein. The RO's consent in this matter resolves the application of Mr. Kelty. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/7/2014) (mro)
October 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 1425 OPINION & ORDER re: 1413 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct Letter and Findings dated September 24, 2013 filed by James P. Noonan. Assuming, arguendo, that Noonan had standing to challenge the RO's determination that he lacked the necessary "qualification, experience [and] training" necessary to run for EST, his application would likely be denied for the reasons stated above. The RO, in his September 24, 2013 findings, stated that "Mr. Noonan was unable to cite any quali fication, experience or training (other than his integrity and dedication to the brotherhood) that would aid in deeming him qualified to serve as a chief executive of the District Council" and that he "admitted too much when he stated that he had received pledges of assistance from siblings (one of whom is an attorney) in meeting the challenge of being EST." (RO's Findings Regarding Required Approval of Candidates for EST, dated Sept. 24, 2013, at 3.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 10/23/2013) (mro)
April 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 1299 OPINION & ORDER: Having reviewed the record herein, and applicable legal authorities, the Court hereby denies Franco's petition for the reasons set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/5/2013) (mro)
January 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 1214 OPINION & ORDER: for the reasons that are set forth in this Order, the Court hereby denies Bisceglie's application in the manner that is set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/2/2013) (pl)
September 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 1186 OPINION AND ORDER: Having reviewed the record herein, including (i) the Consent Decree, entered into by the Government and the District Council of New York City and Vicinity; (ii) the Court's Decision and Order, dated August 27, 2012, denying th e letter application of Joshua A. Douglass, Esq, dated August 7, 2012; (iii) the letter, dated August 28, 2012 of Union members Veronica Session requesting the Court's "intervention;" (iv) the letter, dated September 6, 2012, of Review Officer Dennis M. Walsh, Esq; and applicable legal authorities, the Court hereby denies Ms. Sessions applications as follows: Preliminarily, Ms. Session's application is dismissed without prejudice because she has made no showing that she has s tanding to litigate under the Consent Decree. Assuming, arguendo, that Ms. Session had standing and that her application were properly before the Court, it would be dismissed with respect to the three-dispatch rule and the Gilbert CBA for the reasons set forth in the Court's August 27, 2012 Decision and Order. With respect to full mobility, and again assuming arguendo that Ms. Session had standing and that her application were properly before the Court, Ms. Session's application would be denied as not "ripe" for adjudication. (See Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 9/12/2012) (ja)
June 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 1076 DECISION AND ORDER. Having reviewed the record herein, including, without limitation, the "Motion for Relief under the Consent Decree," filed May 16, 2011 ("Motion") by pro se Petitioners John Musumeci and William T. Doherty, amo ng others ("Petitioners"), and Petitioners' letter dated June 1, 2011; the Consent Decree, entered March 7, 1994; the Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of a Review Officer, entered June 2, 2011; a letter, submitted May 27, 20 11 by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("U BC"), arguing, among other things, that "the Motion is not properly before the Court"; a letter, submitted June 6, 2011 by the United States Attorneys' Off ice for the Southern District of New York ("Government's Letter"), arguing that the relief requested in the Motion should be denied because, among other reasons, "the [M]otion would intrude on the authority of the Secretary of Lab or, and is accordingly preempted"; a letter, submitted June 7, 2011 by counsel to the Review Officer, Dennis Walsh, Esq. ("RO"), stating that the RO "concurs with the position of the United States set forth in" the Government's Letter; and applicable law, the Court concludes as follows: Petitioner's Motion is respectfully denied without prejudice. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/14/11) (djc)
May 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 1068 ORDER. The Court would like to devote the first hour or so at the June 28, 2011conference to a report on the status of the Funds, including the items as so specified in this order. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/26/11) (rjm)
June 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 990 MEMORANDUM: For the reasons set forth above the Court is concurrently endorsing the Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of a Review Officer. A concluding word. The RO's greatly expanded powers and responsibilities will inevitably generat e increased litigation, disputes, applications, and occasions for supervision or intervention by the Court. That reality is presaged by paragraph 12.f. of the Stipulation, which provides the following as set forth in this order. I have supervised thi s case since its inception in 1990. In October 2008, I relocated to the District of Connecticut on permanent reassignment from the Southern District of New York, and now maintain my courtroom and chambers in New Haven. At first, it was feasible to ma nage the case from New Haven, by telephone conferences, faxes, e-mails and an occasional court hearing in New York. But that world changes entirely with the entry of this Stipulation and Order and the assumption by the Review Officer of his broader d uties. It is necessary that all those presently concerned with the events of that new world, or who may become ensnared in those events as they unfold, have ready access to a judicial officer. In that circumstance, I have asked the Chief Judge and the Assignment Committee of this Court to reassign the case to another Judge, whose chambers and courtroom are located at 500 pearl Street. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 6/2/2010) (js)
August 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 975 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: #97906 The Intervenors apply pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c) for a stay pending their appeal of the Court's Remedy Order. The Remedy Order is reported at 618 F.Supp.2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The Remedy Opinion giving the Court's rationale for the Order's provisions is reported at 592 F.Supp.2d 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Familiarity with both is assumed. The Government opposes a stay. The District Council takes no position. For the reasons that follow, the Int ervenors' stay application will be denied as set forth in this orderFor the foregoing reasons, the Intervenors' application for a stay of the Remedy Order pending appeal is DENIED. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 8/17/2009) (jmi) Modified on 8/18/2009 (jab).
June 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 962 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER...to that end, the Court makes this Supplemental Order with respect to the responsibilities and powers of the Independent Investigator: 1. The Independent Investigator shall monitor, by such means as it deems necessary, the District Council's compliance with paragraph 3.b(iii) of the Remedy Order, and as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 6/22/09) (cd)
January 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 956 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #96945: Having summoned up the powers of a Chancellor in Equity, and considered each contention and request made by all those concerned in these proceedings, the Court concludes that the foregoing Opinion describes a fair and proper remedy for the District Council's contempt of the Consent Decree and the Job Referral Rules incorporated therein. Counsel for the Government are directed to settle on ten (10) calendar days' notice a Final Order and Judgment of Contempt and Remedy, consistent with this Opinion. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 1/12/2009) (tve) Modified on 1/14/2009 (mro).
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States Of, et al v. District Council Of, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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.

Why Is My Information Online?