Bak et al v. Metro-North Railroad Company et al
| Chan Young Bak |
| Metro-North Railroad Company, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, City of Bridgeport, Fusco Management Company, LLC, ABM Industries Inc., Suburban Contract Cleaning Services of Pennsylvania, Inc., Gregg, Wies & Gardner Architects, LLC and Tams Consultants, Inc. |
| National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Metro-North Railroad Company and Metropolitan Transportation Authority |
| National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Metro-North Railroad Company and Metropolitan Transportation Authority |
| 1:2012cv03220 |
| April 24, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Thomas P. Griesa |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1349 |
| 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
296
OPINION. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the court directs defendants to pay fees of $1,488.24 to Mr. Serby and $6,039.50 to Dr. Berkowitz. SO ORDERED. re: 284 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Compel TAMS CONSULTANTS, INC. and/or other D efendants to Provide payment for services provided by Plaintiff's experts addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Gary Certain, Esq. dated August 10, 2016. Document filed by Chan Young Bak (as administrator of the estate of HYANG JA BAK LEE, deceased). (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 2/7/2017) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
250
OPINION AND ORDER: This Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions listed as items 236 and 242 on the docket. Trial will commence May 11, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. (Jury Trial set for 5/11/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Thomas P. Griesa.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/8/2015) (kl)
|
|
Filing
230
OPINION & ORDER #105456 re: 175 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Fusco Management Company, LLC, 182 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Metro-North Railroad Company, 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tams Consultants, Inc., 173 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ABM Industries Inc. For the reasons g1ven above, the court grants the motions for summary judgment filed by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and TAMS Consultants, Inc. The court denies the motions for summary judgment filed by Metro-North Railroad Company, Fusco Management Company, LLC, and ABM Industries Inc. This opinion and order resolves the items listed as document numbers 173, 175, 182, and 187 in this case. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/16/2015) (mro) Modified on 4/17/2015 (soh).
|
|
Filing
47
OPINION: According to Bak, the City of Bridgeport has an interest it needs to protect since co-defendants and plaintiffs seek to hold Bridgeport liable. However, if Bridgeport were not a defendant, the court would not be adjudicating Bridgeport' s liability, but rather the liability of the other defendants. Thus Bak's claims that Bridgeport must be a party to protect its liability are mistaken. Furthermore, Bak cannot be the one to assert the City of Bridgeport's interest in the l itigation, and thus for this reason the court rejects Bak's arguments. See Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., No. 05 Civ. 7874, 2008 WL 1752231, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14,2008) ("A party named in the litigation cannot assert the interest on the absent party's behalf."). The court grants Bridgeport's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 3/26/2013) (ago)
|
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.
