Stinson et al v. The City of New York
| Sharif Stinson, Mariam Farnum, Charlene Finley, Ryburn Walkes, Jamel Towe, Christian Dudley, Jocelyn Ferdinand, Gary Shaw and Michael Bennett |
| The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly, Paul Brown and John Doe #1-50 |
| 1:2010cv04228 |
| May 25, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Robert W. Sweet |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
338
OPINION re: 324 MOTION to Approve Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, Service Payments to Class Representatives and Attorneys Fees and Expenses . filed by Chanel Meausa, Gary Shaw, Ricardo Jones, David Thompso n, Ryburn Walkes, Jeremy Thames, Victor Breland, Michael Bennett, Sharif Stinson, Leander Griffin: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement, award of service payments to the Class Representatives, and attorneys' fees and expenses is granted. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/7/2017) (jwh) Modified on 6/12/2017 (jwh).
|
|
Filing
284
OPINION re: 266 SECOND MOTION to Unseal records of summonses issued to presumptive class members, filed by The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly. The motion to unseal is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth above. The Def endants shall submit a proposed Order allowing the unsealing, which shall provide for the redaction or withholding of information identifying both the citizen who received the summons and the officer who issued it. The Order shall also limit the distribution of all non-public summons information to the parties' attorneys and experts. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/23/2016) (spo) Modified on 2/24/2016 (spo). Modified on 2/24/2016 (spo).
|
|
Filing
265
OPINION: The Plaintiffs' motion for an adverse inference is grantedin part and denied in part, as set forth above. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for completing all outstanding discovery and submitting a pretrial order; in the event that they are unable to come to an agreement, they are directed to appear for a conference at 4:00pm on Thursday, January 28 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (As further set forth in this Order) (Status Conference set for 1/28/2016 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/2/2016) (kl)
|
|
Filing
260
OPINION: Defendants Raymond W. Kelly, the City of New York, and 50 John Doe police officers (collectively, the "Defendants" or the "City") have filed a letter-motion to remove the statutory seal imposed by N.Y.C.P.L. §§ 160.50 and 160.55 on the records of all individuals who received criminal court summonses between May 1, 2007 and the conclusion of this litigation. The City has failed to make the strong showing required to unseal the records. Its need for the infor mation sought is insufficient to outweigh the privacy interests at issue and the deference accorded to state-created privileges. See Daniels, 2001 WL 228091, at *1. The motion to unseal is therefore denied. It is so ordered. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/11/2015) (kko)
|
|
Filing
200
OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's request for production of the Books is denied. It is so ordered. (See Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/23/2015) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
173
OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are directed to return all copies of the Documents to Defendants. Plaintiffs may, however, rely on any material learned prior to the Defendants' September 16 Letter in challenging Defendants&# 039; assertion of privilege. Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' assertion of privilege dated October 8, 2014, must be served by Friday, October 17, 2014. Defendants' response, if any, must be served by Tuesday, October 21, 2014. The parties will be heard on Defendants' assertion of privilege on October 22, 2014 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/10/2014) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
164
OPINION: The Plaintiffs in this class action have moved to compel the nonparty Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York (the "PBA") to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena and an April 17, 2014 order of this Court (the "April 17 Order"). Based on the conclusions set forth within, the motion is granted. It is so ordered. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/18/2014) (ajs)
|
|
Filing
102
OPINION. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied, and Plaintiff's request for the City to provide non-party officers with a statement relating the potential conflict of representation by corporation couns el is granted. It is so ordered. re: 89 MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's February 11, 2014 Order directing the City to provide CompStat meeting videos requested by plaintiffs for review by their counsel, irrespective of the privileged material on the videos filed by The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/24/2014) (rjm) Modified on 3/25/2014 (rjm).
|
|
Filing
45
OPINION denying re: 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 34 Memorandum & Opinion filed by The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/13/2012) (cd)
|
|
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM & OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. The class certified is defined to include individuals who were issued summonses that were later dismissed upon a judicial finding of fa cial insufficiency and who were ticketed without probable cause. Individuals who were issued summonses that survived the defect review process but were dismissed upon a judicial finding of facial insufficiency are presumptive members of the class, bu t Defendants can challenge any presumptive class members on grounds that the summons at issue was dismissed for reasons other than a lack of probable cause. The applicable class period is May 25, 2007 to the present, pursuant to the three year statut e of limitations governing actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The class is certified under both Rules 23 (b) (2) and 2 3 (b) (3), with the Rule 23 (b) (2) class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and the Rule 23(b) (3) class se eking money damages. Plaintiffs Sharif Stinson, Ryburn Walkes, Gary Shaw, Michael Bennett, Chanel Meausa. David Thompson, Julius Dixon, Jeremy Thames, Leander Griffin, Ricardo Jones, Victor Breland and Lindsey Riddick will serve as class representati ves, and Jon Norinsberg, Esq. and Cohen & Fitch LLP will serve as class counsel. re: 12 MOTION to Certify Class. filed by Gary Shaw, Ricardo Jones, David Thompson, Mica Ancrum, Jamel Towe, Mariam Farnum, Brian Morris, Jocelyn Ferdinand, Sean Pett igrew, Michael Bennett, Sharif Stinson, Chanel Meausa, Christian Dudley, Joseph Sarpong, Ryburn Walkes, Julius Dixon, Jeremy Thames, Victor Breland, Michael Riddick, Lindsey Riddick, Charlene Finley, Leander Griffin. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/23/2012) (djc)
|
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.
