Tchatat v. The City Of New York , et al
| Josias Tchatat |
| The City Of New York ,, Liam O'Hara, Harry Arocho, John Does, Richard Roes, Best Buy Co., Inc., Shwon Edmonds, Richard Castellano, Van Mobley, Jesse Kempen, Jessica Delestin, Ian Palmer, Eastern Security Corp. and Michael Moes |
| 1:2014cv02385 |
| April 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Lorna G. Schofield |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| None |
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
418
ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that the stay on the Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 412) is lifted. It is further ORDERED that Defendant The City of New York shall serve this order on Plaintiff, and file proof of service on ECF, by April 8, 2020. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/3/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
415
ORDER: WHEREAS, on February 12, 2020, Defendant The City of New York filed a Bill of Costs Notice of Taxation to recover costs against Plaintiff (Dkt. Nos. 409, 410). It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file objections on ECF or by writing t o the Court prior to March 19, 2020 at 10:40 a.m. The parties need not appear at the date and time scheduled for taxation unless requested by the Clerk. In the absence of written objection, the stay on the Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 412) will be lifted. It is further ORDERED that Defendant The City of New York shall serve this order and Dkt. Nos. 409 & 410 on Plaintiff in-person or via mail, and file proof of service on ECF, by March 9, 2020. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/4/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
413
ORDER: WHEREAS, no such proof of service was filed. It is hereby ORDERED that the Taxation of Costs (Dkt. No. 412) is STAYED until further Court Order. It is further ORDERED that, by March 3, 2020, Defendant the City of New York shall file proof o f service on Plaintiff of this Court's Order at Dkt. No. 411 showing that Plaintiff was served on or before February 18, 2020 or, in the alternative, file a letter asserting that Plaintiff was not so served. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/28/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
336
OPINION AND ORDER re: 307 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Liam O'Hara, Harry Arocho, 320 CROSS MOTION to Amend/Correct 110 Amended Complaint, to Reinstate Plaintiff's Monell Claims, filed by Jo sias Tchatat. (Harry Arocho (Shield No. 24345), Harry Arocho (Shield No. 24345), Harry Arocho (Shield No. 24345) and Harry Arocho (Shield No. 24345) terminated.) Defendants' motion is granted as to Arocho and denied as to O'Ha ra. Plaintiff's cross-motion is denied and his objection is overruled. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Arocho and DENIED as to O'Hara; Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is DENIED; and Plaintiff's objection to Judge Gorenstein's denial of spoliation sanctions is OVERRULED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Number 307 and 320, and terminate Defendant Arocho from the case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/25/2017) (ras)
|
|
Filing
331
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 311 MOTION for Sanctions Spoliation Sanctions filed by Josias Tchatat. For the foregoing reasons, Tchatat's request for spoliation sanctions (Docket # 311) is denied. Obviously, Tchatat's request for attorney's fees is also denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/14/2017) (ama)
|
|
Filing
292
OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this Opinion and Order, the plaintiff's motion to preclude Dr. Raines's report (Docket #273) is granted. re: 273 MOTION to Preclude Amended Expert Report of Dr. Raines, and for relief under Daubert, etc. filed by Josias Tchatat. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/2016) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
237
OPINION AND ORDER re: 235 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 231 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by Josias Tchatat. Tchatat's arguments are both untimely and procedurally improper. The motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket No. 235. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/5/2015) (kgo)
|
|
Filing
231
OPINION and ORDER re: 210 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 206 Memorandum & Opinion. filed by Josias Tchatat. For the foregoing reasons, Tchatat's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket No. 210 . (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/20/2015) (jcs)
|
|
Filing
206
OPINION AND ORDER re: 103 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. filed by Eastern Security Corp., Isidore Caleca, Samuel J. Votta, 105 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint. filed by Shwon Edmonds , 100 SECOND MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Best Buy Co., Inc.. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motions are: 1. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim (First Claim) against Palmer and Votta, but DENIED agains t all other individual Defendants; 2. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim for Supervisory Liability (Second Claim) against Votta, but DENIED against Castellano and Caleca; 3. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Constitutional Violations Clai m (Third Claim) in its entirety; 4. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1981 Claim (Fourth Claim) in its entirety; 5. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1985(3) Claim (Fifth Claim) against O'Hara, Arocho, Palmer and Caleca, but DENIED aga inst Delestin, Castellano, Mobley, Kempen and Edmonds; 6. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Respondeat Superior Claim for Federal Violations (Sixth Claim) as it relates to Plaintiff's § 1983 and § 1981 claims, but DENIED as it relates t o his § 1985(c) claim against Best Buy and Eastern; 7. DENIED as to Plaintiff's Respondeat Superior Claim for Violations of State Law (Seventh Claim) against Best Buy and Eastern as the claim relates to false arrest and malicious prosecut ion, but GRANTED as to all other underlying state tort claims; 8. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state law claims for (1) assault and battery, (2) trespass, (3) IIED and (4) abuse of process (Eighth, Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Claims) in thei r entirety; 9. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state law False Arrest Claim (Ninth Claim) against Palmer, but DENIED against Edmonds, Castellano, Mobley, Kempen and Delestin; 10. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state law Malicious Prosecution Claim ( Tenth Claim) against Palmer, Castellano and Kempen, but DENIED as to Edmonds, Mobley, Delestin and Caleca; 11. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Negligence Claim (Fourteenth Claim) in its entirety; 12. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Negligent Hiring, Screening, Retention, Supervision and Training Claim (Fifteenth Claim) in its entirety; 13. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's State Constitutional Tort Claim (Sixteenth Claim) in its entirety; 14. GRANTED as to Plaintiff's NYCHRL Claim (Seventee nth Claim) against Palmer and Caleca, but DENIED against Best Buy, Eastern, Edmonds, Castellano, Mobley, Kempen, and Delestin; Accordingly, Plaintiff's Third, Fourth, Eighth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth C laims are dismissed in their entirety. All other claims survive, at least in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 48, 100, 103 and 105. (As further set forth in this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/28/2015) (kgo)
|
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.
