Weisshaus v. The State of New York et al
Plaintiff: Gizella Weisshaus
Defendant: The State of New York, The Office of Court Administration of the Unified Court System, Thomas J. Cahill, Judith N. Stein, Hal R. Lieberman, Edward D. Fagan, John Does and Jane Does
Case Number: 1:2008cv04053
Filed: April 30, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Kings
Presiding Judge: Unassigned
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 113 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Weisshaus' March 8, 2010 motion for summary judgment is denied and Fagan's March 8, 2010 motion for summary judgment is granted. Weisshaus' March 26, 2010 motion styled "Motion for Dis missal of Defendant's Summary Judgment" is denied. weisshaus' claims are dismissed with prejudice. Weisshaus' March 8, 2010 motion to dismiss Fagan's counterclaim is granted and Fagan's May 19, 2010 motion to amend his c ounterclaim is denied. Fagan's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice. Fagan's additional requests in the May 19, 2010 motion are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/15/2010) (jpo)
April 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Fagan must file his previously served motion for summary judgment with the Clerk of Court no later than April 9, 2010. Fagan must serve and file his opposition to Weisshaus' motion for summary judgment by April 1 6 1 2010. The parties must serve and file their replies, if any, by April 23, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the time either party files any motion papers, the party shall supply one (1) courtesy copy to Chambers by mailing or delivering it to the Pro Se Office, Room 230, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/6/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)
December 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 76 OPINION AND ORDER:#98357 Denying, re: 74 MOTION to Disqualify Judge, filed by Gizella Weisshaus. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/15/09) (ae) Modified on 12/17/2009 (eef).
November 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that defendant Fagan's response to plaintiff's motion to disqualify shall be filed by November 23. Plaintiff's response shall be filed by November 25. It is further ordered that plaintiff shall respond to de fendant Fagan's document production requests by November 30. Ms. Weisshaus shall make herself available, subject to necessary medical restrictions, for her deposition before Magistrate Judge Fox by December 18. Any motion for summary judgment must be filed by January 22, 2010. The opposition shall be due February 19. Any reply shall be filed by March 5. At the time any reply is filed, each party shall provide one courtesy copy of its motion papers to the Pro Se Clerk's Office, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/19/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)
August 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 50 OPINION AND ORDER re:#97941 30 MOTION to Dismiss. MOTION holding that the defense of laches bars any injunctive relief. filed by Saul E. Feder, 45 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Saul E. Feder, 23 MOTION to Dismiss. MOTION awarding defendants the costs and disbursements of this action. filed by Mel Urbach.The State Defendants' January 16, 2009 motion to dismiss is granted. The January 16, 2009, January 21, 2009 and May 19, 2009 motions to dismiss filed by Feder and Urbach are granted. Th e State Defendants, Feder, and Urbach are thus dismissed as defendants in this lawsuit. The surviving parts of the amended complaint are the breach of contract claim against Fagan in Count 2 and the allegations in Count 3 that Fagan breached fiduciar y duties owed to Weisshaus. A separate scheduling order shall issue governing the ongoing litigation between Fagan and Weisshaus. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 8/20/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers Modified on 8/21/2009 (jmi). Modified on 8/24/2009 (eef).
February 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss must be submitted by March 13, 2009. It is hereby ordered that reply papers, if any, must be filed by March 27, 2009. It is further ordered that if F agan brings an Order to Show Cause for Entry of Default, he must submit a letter of no more than two pages by February 20, 2009, explaining 1) how service of his answer and counterclaims was made to plaintiff and 2) why his service method was sufficient under the law. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/11/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)
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: Weisshaus v. The State of New York et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gizella Weisshaus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The State of New York
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Office of Court Administration of the Unified Court System
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thomas J. Cahill
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Judith N. Stein
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hal R. Lieberman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edward D. Fagan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Does
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jane Does
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?