Williams v. Rosenblatt Securities Inc.
Plaintiff: Steven A. Williams
Defendant: Rosenblatt Securities Inc., Richard Rosentblatt, Joseph Gawronski, Gary Wishnow, Alex Kessmsies, Justin Schack, Scott Burill, Joseph Bamanti, Gordan Charlop, Charles Roney, Loraine Henricks, Jane St. Capital and Integral Derivatives
Case Number: 1:2014cv04390
Filed: June 4, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: John G. Koeltl
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 348 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #107051: Pro se plaintiff Steven Williams ("Williams") has filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Freemans November 23, 2016 Order which denied reconsideration of a November 9, 2016 Order and also made additi onal rulings. (As further set forth in this Order.) The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties. To the extent they are not dealt with explicitly above, they are either moot or without merit. The Objection to the Magistrate Judges November 23, 2016 Order is overruled. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/20/2017) (cf) Modified on 2/21/2017 (ap).
September 12, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 300 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by Williams. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. No response to the motion is required. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike is denied and the Clerk is directed to close Docket Number 279. re: 279 MOTION to Strike Document No. 277 filed by Steven A. Williams. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/9/2016) (rjm)
July 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 269 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 260 MOTION to Amend/Correct. filed by Steven A. Williams, 250 MOTION to Dismiss Fifth Amended Complaint. filed by Rosenblatt Securities Inc..The Court has considered all of the arguments of the p arties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. To the extent specified above, the defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the Fifth Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff's motion to file a Sixth Amended Complaint is denied. The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/22/2016) (kgo)
February 11, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 242 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, all pending motions by th e plaintiff are denied, except that the motion for joinder of claims and parties to claims is granted to the extent explained above. The Fifth Amended Complaint must be filed no later than March 11, 2015. The Clerk is directed to close all pending mo tions. SO ORDERED. re: 162 MOTION for Joinder filed by Steven A. Williams, 165 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 163 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 162 MOTION for Joinder, 159 Memorandum & Opinion, < i>[replaces #164 - as that one cannot be opened] addressed to Judge John filed by Rosenblatt Securities Inc., 213 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Steven A. Williams, 212 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Steven A. Williams, 228 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel filed by Steven A. Williams, 200 MOTION to Strike Document No. [197-1, 197-2, 197-3] filed by Steven A. Williams, 219 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Steven A. Williams, 171 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Steven A. Williams, 235 MOTION for Joinder filed by Steven A. Williams, 220 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Steven A. Williams. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/11/2016.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/11/2016) (rjm)
January 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 225 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 218. So ordered. re: 218 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Steven A. Williams. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/26/2016) (rjm)
October 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 184 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 161 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Steven A. Williams. The Court has received the pro se plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. However, from the papers provided, the Court cannot determine tha t the necessary showing for appointment of counsel has been met. The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 161. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/27/2015) (kko)
October 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 159 OPINION AND ORDER re: 124 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by Steven A. Williams, 108 MOTION to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint. filed by Integral Derivatives, 105 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Jane St. Capital, 118 MOTION to Strike Document No. 33 . filed by Steven A. Williams, 135 MOTION for Conference. filed by Steven A. Williams, 134 MOTION to Strike Document No. 118 . filed by Steven A. Williams, 111 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. filed by Rosenblatt Securities Inc., 113 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Lorraine Henricks(Turanski). The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not spec ifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss by Jane St (ECF No. 105), Integral (ECF No. 108), and Dr. Henricks (ECF No. 113) are granted. The plaintiff' s claims against these defendants are dismissed, except that the claim for medical malpractice against Dr. Henricks, and the NYHRL claims against Jane St. and Integral are dismissed without prejudice because the Court has declined to exercise supp lemental jurisdiction over those claims. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 54(b), there is no just reason for delay in entering a final judgment dismissing the claims against Jane St., Integral, and Dr. Henricks, and a final judgment will be entered acco rdingly. The RSI Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion by the RSI Defendants to dismiss the Dodd-Frank claim, the claim under Title I of the ADA, and the claim under NYHRL against the RSI Defendants i s denied. The remaining claims against the RSI Defendants are dismissed. All pending motions by the plaintiff (ECF No. 118, 124, 133, 134, 135) are denied. The plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction is denied. The foregoing const itutes the Court's findings of facts and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a)(2). The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions, and to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) dismissing the claims against Jane St., Integral, and Dr. Henricks as explained above. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/7/2015) (kgo)
July 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF SERVICE 104552: The Court dismisses the plaintiff's claims against the NYSE on immunity grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the plaintiff one USM-285form for each remaining defendant, so that each remaining defendant may be served. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/29/2014) (ama) Modified on 7/30/2014 (nt).
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: Williams v. Rosenblatt Securities Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steven A. Williams
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rosenblatt Securities Inc.
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Richard Rosentblatt
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joseph Gawronski
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gary Wishnow
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Alex Kessmsies
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Justin Schack
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Scott Burill
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joseph Bamanti
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gordan Charlop
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Charles Roney
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Loraine Henricks
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jane St. Capital
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Integral Derivatives
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 [ 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?