Mandarino v. Mandarino

Mandarino v. Mandarino

Case Number:	1:2004cv00148
Filed:	January 8, 2004
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Kimba M. Wood
Presiding Judge:	Gabriel W. Gorenstein
Nature of Suit:	Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action:	18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
March 29, 2010	Filing 133 OPINION AND ORDER that for the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling to avoid the statute of limitations bar on his claims. Accordingly defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds (docket #5) is granted. The Clerk is requested to enter judgment dismissing the case. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/29/10) Copies sent by chambers.(dle)
June 4, 2009	Filing 118 OPINION AND ORDER:#97601 there is no evidence that there has ever been a properly-served statement of death in this case that triggered the 90-day period for filing a motion to substitute. As defendants have raised only untimeliness in opposition to plaintiff's motion, their cross-motion for dismissal (Docket # 108) is denied. Nonetheless, the Court will this time deny the motion to substitute (Docket # 102) because there is no evidence in the record that Patricia Mandarino has been appoint ed as representative of plaintiff's estate by an appropriate court. If plaintiff provides proof of the appointment within 30 days, the Court will grant the motion to substitute. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/29/2009) (jmi) Modified on 6/5/2009 (jab). Modified on 6/11/2009 (jmi).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 29, 2010

Filing 133 OPINION AND ORDER that for the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling to avoid the statute of limitations bar on his claims. Accordingly defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds (docket #5) is granted. The Clerk is requested to enter judgment dismissing the case. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/29/10) Copies sent by chambers.(dle)

June 4, 2009

Filing 118 OPINION AND ORDER:#97601 there is no evidence that there has ever been a properly-served statement of death in this case that triggered the 90-day period for filing a motion to substitute. As defendants have raised only untimeliness in opposition to plaintiff's motion, their cross-motion for dismissal (Docket # 108) is denied. Nonetheless, the Court will this time deny the motion to substitute (Docket # 102) because there is no evidence in the record that Patricia Mandarino has been appoint ed as representative of plaintiff's estate by an appropriate court. If plaintiff provides proof of the appointment within 30 days, the Court will grant the motion to substitute. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/29/2009) (jmi) Modified on 6/5/2009 (jab). Modified on 6/11/2009 (jmi).

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: Mandarino v. Mandarino
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?