Pena v. Chocolate

Pena v. Chocolate

Plaintiff:	Carlos Pena
Defendant:	Madelaine Chocolate
Case Number:	1:2010cv04067
Filed:	May 17, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Kings
Presiding Judge:	Barbara S. Jones
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
September 25, 2012	Filing 43 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court construes Pena's letter as a Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons explained within this Order and Opinion, this motion is DENIED. IF Pena wishes to pursue this matter further on appeal, or if he has claims d ifferent or in addition to those in the case at bar, the Court urges Pena to contact the Pro Se Office to discuss proper procedure. The Office is located at 500 Pearl Street, Room 230, New York, New York 10007, and can also be reached at 212 805-0175 during normal business hours. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and this case remains closed. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/25/2012) (ago)
September 10, 2012	Filing 42 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Madelaine Chocolate. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Chocolate'S motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice and its request for attorney's fees is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. 30) and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/07/2012). SO ORDERED. (ama)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 25, 2012

Filing 43 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court construes Pena's letter as a Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons explained within this Order and Opinion, this motion is DENIED. IF Pena wishes to pursue this matter further on appeal, or if he has claims d ifferent or in addition to those in the case at bar, the Court urges Pena to contact the Pro Se Office to discuss proper procedure. The Office is located at 500 Pearl Street, Room 230, New York, New York 10007, and can also be reached at 212 805-0175 during normal business hours. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and this case remains closed. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/25/2012) (ago)

September 10, 2012

Filing 42 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Madelaine Chocolate. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Chocolate'S motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice and its request for attorney's fees is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. 30) and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 9/07/2012). SO ORDERED. (ama)

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: Pena v. Chocolate
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carlos Pena
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: Madelaine Chocolate
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?