Gitter v. Target Corporation et al
| Steven Gitter |
| Target Corporation, Elvin Fermin, John Does, XYZ Corporations and XYZ Entities 1-5 |
| 1:2014cv04460 |
| June 20, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Robert P. Patterson |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
35
OPINION AND ORDER #105880:On June 4, 2013, plaintiff Stephanie Gitter (Plaintiff or Gitter) was handcuffed by police officer Yayon Jean-Pierre (Jean-Pierre) and later arrested for shoplifting from defendant Target Corporation (Target). She has sued Target under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York tort law for emotional and physical damages resulting from her handcuffing. Target moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) it is not a state actor and therefore is immune from liability unde r § 1983; and (2) it is not vicariously liable for the conduct of New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Jean-Pierre. For the following reasons, Targets motion for summary judgment is granted....Targets June 15, 2015 motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for Target and close the case. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 9/29/2015) (gr) Modified on 9/29/2015 (ca).
|
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.
