Rullan v. New York City Sanitation Department

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Rullan v. New York City Sanitation Department

Rullan v. New York City Sanitation Department

Plaintiff:	Juan Rullan
Defendant:	New York City Sanitation Department
Case Number:	1:2013cv05154
Filed:	July 24, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Bronx
Presiding Judge:	John G. Koeltl
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
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
May 16, 2014	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 10 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by New York City Sanitation Department. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed abo ve, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.Because the Court has already allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint, the plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action and closing the case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/16/2014) (ama) Modified on 5/16/2014 (ama).
August 6, 2013	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing the information specified above. The amended complaint must be submitted to this Courts Pro Se Office within sixty days of the date of this Order. Further , the amended complaint must be captioned as an AMENDED COMPLAINT and bear the same docket number as this Order. An Amended Complaint for Employment Discrimination form, which the plaintiff should complete as specified above, is attached to this Orde r. No summons will issue at this time. If the plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed as barred byres judicata and collateral estoppel, and for failure to s tate a claim. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. In forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 8/5/2013) (djc) Modified on 8/6/2013 (djc).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 16, 2014

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 10 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by New York City Sanitation Department. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed abo ve, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.Because the Court has already allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint, the plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this action and closing the case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/16/2014) (ama) Modified on 5/16/2014 (ama).

August 6, 2013

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing the information specified above. The amended complaint must be submitted to this Courts Pro Se Office within sixty days of the date of this Order. Further , the amended complaint must be captioned as an AMENDED COMPLAINT and bear the same docket number as this Order. An Amended Complaint for Employment Discrimination form, which the plaintiff should complete as specified above, is attached to this Orde r. No summons will issue at this time. If the plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed as barred byres judicata and collateral estoppel, and for failure to s tate a claim. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. In forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 8/5/2013) (djc) Modified on 8/6/2013 (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: Rullan v. New York City Sanitation Department
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: New York City Sanitation Department
Represented By:	Shawn Matthew Clark
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 ]
Plaintiff: Juan Rullan
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?