Castro v. Mitchell et al
| Roberto Castro |
| Tom Mitchell and David Rodriguez |
| 1:2009cv03754 |
| April 13, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| William H. Pauley |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
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
88
OPINION AND ORDER re: 86 SECOND MOTION in Limine filed by The Department of Education of The City of New York. The Court has reviewed defendant's memorandum of law, dated March 1, 2012, in support of its second motion in limine. Plaintiff did not respond to that motion. The Court's rulings are as follows: The motion to exclude plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 6 is granted. As narrowed by Judge Pauley's decision on summary judgment and this Court's February 23, 2012 r uling on the first round of motions in limine, the sole remaining claim in this case, which is scheduled for trial on April 9, 2012, is whether plaintiff was assigned disproportionately more work, or different work, than his coworkers, on account of national origin discrimination. Thus, evidence of plaintiff's reasons for ceasing employment or post-employment medical, psychological, or economic circumstances, is irrelevant. As to plaintiff's Exhibit 1, the motion to exclude it is also granted. Exhibit 1 consists of a set of short letters attesting to Mr. Castro's work qualifications. These letters are hearsay. Plaintiff has not proffered any argument explaining why these letters are admissible other than for the truth of the matter asserted (e.g., to impeach anticipated contrary testimony by the letter writer, or to establish notice of a relevant fact). As to plaintiffs Exhibit 5, the motion to exclude it is also granted, but with the following qualifications. Exhibit 5 consists of testimony from an administrative hearing before the State Division of Human Rights arising out of a complaint filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff has not specified any particular portion of this testimony that he wishes to offer. To the extent plaintiff proposes to offer excerpts of this testimony as substantive evidence at trial, it is excluded, except insofar as admission at trial complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). As to plaintiffs Exhibit 7, the motion to ex clude it is granted. Exhibit 7 consists of various employment records, including records relating to plaintiff s sick and vacation leave, a jury duty summons, a memorandum regarding asbestos training, plaintiffs W-4 form, and results of plaintiffs 19 98 test for tuberculosis. Defendant seeks to admit the testimony of Gilberto Dejesus, a cleaner at P.S. 173 of Dominican descent, to rebut the claim that supervisor David Rodriguez assigned more work to plaintiff because of plaintiff's national origin (also Dominican). As proffered by the defendant, Dejesus was plaintiff's successor-following the cessation of plaintiff's employment in May 2006, Dejesus worked the same cleaning shift at P.S. 173 as plaintiff had, and was supervise d by Rodriguez. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 to the exclude this testimony, on the grounds that its limited probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, and delay. A final pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for April 2, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 18C at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/8/2012) (mro)
|
|
Filing
85
OPINION AND ORDER re: 77 MOTION in Limine and Pre-Trial Motions filed by The Department of Education of The City of New York. For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that: (1) the City's motion to dismiss Castro's ADEA claim is GRANTED; (2) Castro's motion to reconsider the dismissal of his hostile work environment claim is DENIED; (3) the City's motion to amend the case caption to strike all defendants other than the City is GRANTED; (4) the City's motion t o exclude evidence of the May 9, 2006 incident involving Castro and Rodriguez is DENIED; (5) the City's motion to exclude evidence of Castro's post-employment medical and psychological condition is GRANTED; (6) the City's motion to exc lude evidence or claims of Castro's alleged constructive discharge, and the related motion to preclude any evidence of economic damage arising from the cessation of Castro's employment is GRANTED; (7) the City's motion to preclude the testimony of Cassie Castillo, "Ms. Linda," Dr. Santos Veles, and Rosa Castro is GRANTED, but its motion to preclude the testimony of other defense witnesses is DENIED; (8) the City's motion to exclude Castro's trial exhibits 1 thr ough 7 is DENIED, but solely because those exhibits have not been made available to the Court; (9) Castro's motion to exclude defense witnesses Gilberto DeJesus and Jason Rosario is GRANTED; and (10) Castro's motion to preclude defense exhibits A, I, J, L, N, Q, T, V, W, X, and Y is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/23/2012) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
48
OPINION AND ORDER, that for the foregoing reasons, the motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Docket # 31) is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/3/10) (pl)
|
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.
