Daniel v. T & M Protection Resources LLC et al
Plaintiff: Otis A. Daniel
Defendant: T & M Protection Resources LLC, Edward J. Minskoff Equities and Universal Protection Services
Case Number: 1:2013cv04384
Filed: June 24, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Paul A. Engelmayer
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 15, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 217 ORDER: In light of the Court's July 14, 2020 order, Dkt. 216, the Clerk of Court is instructed to docket pro se plaintiff Otis Daniel's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in No. 20 Civ. 2149 (LLS) at Dkt. 7 as a timely notice of appeal in this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/15/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
July 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 216 ORDER: In light of Daniel's pro se status, the Court construes Daniel's motion liberally as a notice of appeal of this Court's July 9, 2020 order at Dkt. 215. Daniel's notice of appeal is timely as to that order. If Daniel does no t wish to appeal this Court's July 9, 2020 order, he is to file a letter, addressed to this Court, which indicates his intent to withdraw the notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transmit this order and the attached notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, and to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/14/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Appeals Clerk. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
July 9, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 215 ORDER denying 214 Motion for Reconsideration re 186 Clerk's Judgment. The Court, however, again finds no reason to vacate the decisions or judgment in this case, and denies this motion, for the reasons stated in its July 27, 2018 denial of Daniel's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 195, and its June 22, 2020 denial of Daniel's Rule 60(b) motion, Dkt. 212. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. For avoidance of doubt, this case remains closed. SO ORDERED., (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/9/20) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
June 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 212 ORDER: The Court is deeply familiar with this matter, having resolved a summary judgement motion and presided over a bench trial, but finds no record evidence of fraud justifying relief. Further, Daniel's motion is untimely, coming almost tw o years after the judgement in this case, which were entered on July 12, 2018, Dkt. 178, and July 20, 2018, Dkt. 186. The Court therefore denies Otis' motion under Rule 60(b)(3). As further wet forth in this Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. For avoidance of doubt, this case remains closed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/22/2020) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
July 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 185 CORRECTED OPINION & ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby awards judgment to T&M. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/19/2018) (anc)
July 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 175 OPINION & ORDER RE: 2 COMPLAINT. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby awards judgment to T&M. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/12/2018) (anc)
February 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 114 OPINION & ORDER re: 111 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 110 Clerk's Judgment, filed by Otis A. Daniel. For the foregoing reasons, Daniel's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 111. SO ORDERED. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/24/2015) (ajs)
February 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 106 OPINION & ORDER #105258 re: 65 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by T & M Protection Resources LLC. For the foregoing reasons, T&M's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 65, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/19/2015) (lmb) Modified on 2/19/2015 (soh).
September 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 88 OPINION AND ORDER re: 82 MOTION to Compel T&M Protection Resources LLC to to submit to the Court the CD(Audio Recordings) given to them by the plaintiff during discovery etc. filed by Otis A. Daniel. Accordingly, there is no legal basis on which I can order the defendant to submit any specific evidence to the Court. If plaintiff believes the recordings are essential to the fair consideration of the pending motion for summary judgment, he should make an application to Judge Engelmayer (on notice to defendant) for permission to file sur-reply papers, and if that permission is granted, he should submit appropriately authenticated transcripts of the recordings with his sur-reply papers. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/8/2014) Copies Sent By Chambers. (tro)
January 16, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 43 OPINION & ORDER re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Otis A. Daniel. filed by Edward J. Minskoff Equities, 24 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Otis A. Daniel. filed by Edward J. Min skoff Equities. Minskoff's motion to dismiss the SAC is denied as to the Title VII, FMLA, NYSHRL, and NYCRL claims against it, and granted as to the negligence claim. Because the Court denies Minskoff's motion to dismiss the Title VII clai m, it need not address Minskoff's argument that, were the Court to dismiss the Title VII claim, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 24 and 33. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/15/2014) (djc)
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: Daniel v. T & M Protection Resources LLC 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: Otis A. Daniel
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: T & M Protection Resources LLC
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 J. Minskoff Equities
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: Universal Protection Services
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?