Richmond et al v. General Nutrition Centers Inc. et al
| Kenroy Richmond, Samuel Warkie, Prince R. Shaw and Marlon Hattimore |
| General Nutrition Centers Inc. and Neal Blitzer |
| 1:2008cv03577 |
| April 14, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| None |
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
157
OPINION & ORDER re: #102227 146 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by General Nutrition Centers Inc., Neal Blitzer. For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss Warkie's claims is denied. The Clerk of Court is di rected to terminate the motion at docket number 146. The Court has scheduled a final pretrial conference in this matter for September 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm in Courtroom 18C of the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. The purpose of that conference will be to discuss trial mechanics, as well as any remaining evidentiary issues. The Court will also inquire as to prospects for settlement. All four plaintiffs, as well as defendant Blitzer and a representative of GNC wit h authority to bind the company and/or its insurer, must attend the final pretrial conference in person. No appearance by telephone will be permitted. Failure by any party to appear at the conference, in person, will result in sanction, up to and including dismissal and/or a default judgment. Any application for relief from any part of this Order must be made by Monday, August 27, 2012. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/21/2012) (mro) Modified on 8/21/2012 (jab).
|
|
Filing
138
OPINION & ORDER re: 121 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Damages filed by General Nutrition Centers Inc., Neal Blitzer, 124 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony From Non-Party Witnesses filed by General Nutrition Centers Inc ., Neal Blitzer. For the foregoing reasons, the Court precludes plaintiffs Richmond and Hattimore from pursuing back pay damages as to the years 2006 and 2007. The Court denies defendants' motion to categorically preclude non-party witnesses Blades, Jeanty, Quarshie, and Peprah from testifying, and similarly declines to preclude non-party witnesses from offering admissible testimony as to plaintiffs' emotional distress. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/11/2012) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
116
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the foregoing, the Court: (1) denies defendants motion to categorically exclude the testimony of all non-party witnesses called by the plaintiff; rather, any of the 46 witnesses listed in plaintiffs ini tial disclosures is eligible to testify at trial; and the determination remains to be made on a witness-by-witness basis whether the testimony of any such witness comports with the Federal Rules of Evidence; (2) grants defendants motion to preclude a t trial all evidence as to damages not produced in discovery, and all evidence or arguments as to damage computations that are based in whole or part on evidence not produced in discovery; the Court will, however, permit briefing, on the schedule set forth below, on the issue of whether plaintiffs failure to produce particular items of evidence as to damages was substantially justified and whether the admission at trial of each particular item of proposed damages evidence that was first disclose d shortly before trial would be harmless; and (3) grants defendants motion to preclude evidence in the form of complaints or other court filings as to other claims of discrimination; however, to the extent that plaintiffs propose to call a witness or witnesses with respect to alleged prior incidents of discrimination, the determination remains to be made on a witness-by-witness basis whether the testimony of any such witness comports with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court observes that th ere are a substantial number of open evidentiary issues in this case, relating, potentially, to all three of the above categories of evidence. To insure that these issues are briefed and resolved amply before the trial-ready date of April 9, 2012, th e Court gives direction in the manner that is set forth in this Order. To the extent that a party wishes to move in limine to strike some or all of the anticipated testimony of a witness called by the other side, or to exclude documentary or physical evidence, such a motion is due on Friday, March 23,2012. To the extent the defense seeks to rebut any argument by plaintiffs that particular evidence regarding damages is appropriately admitted (e.g., because its non-production is not substantially justified and its late production is not harmless) a motion in limine to preclude such evidence is due on this date, March 23, 2012. To the extent that a party wishes to oppose a motion in limine, such an opposition is due on Wednesday, March 28, 201 2. There will be no extensions of the deadlines above. The parties are advised that failure to meet a deadline with regard to a motion in limine, or a response to such a motion, will be taken to reflect non-opposition to the adversary's positio n as to the evidence at issue. The Court expects to supply its rulings on any motions in limine at the final pretrial conference in this case, scheduled for Monday, April 2, 2012 at 2:30pm. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at docket numbers 102, 105, and 107. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/9/2012) (pl)
|
|
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' opposition to their summary judgment motion in its entirety, as well as Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' af fidavits in opposition to summary judgment and the non-party declarations of Gladys Kumi, Kissi Peprah, and Pete Ortiz. The Court grants Defendants' motion to strike Exhibits A, B, and D to Plaintiffs' opposition to the summary judgment mot ion. The Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to: Count 8; Counts 1 and 2 as against Blitzer; Counts 1, 3, and 5 insofar as they are asserted by Warkie and Siaw and pertain to their demotions; and Count 1 insofar as it is asse rted by Siaw and Hattimore. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves docket entry nos. 49 and 80. The parties are directed to meet with Magistrate Judge Pitman promptly f or settlement purposes and to address any outstanding pretrial issues. As noted above, Plaintiffs are encouraged to retain or associate counsel experienced in federal litigation. Noncompliance with applicable rules and procedural standards will not be indulged going forward. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/22/2011) (jfe)
|
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 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.
