Moreno-Godoy v. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, L.L.P. et al
| Luis Felipe Moreno-Godoy |
| Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, L.L.P., Roger L. Stavis, Esq. and Steven R. Kartagener |
| 1:2014cv07082 |
| August 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| James C. Francis |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
261
RULE 68 JUDGMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered against Defendants and in favor of Mr. Moreno Godoy in the amount of two hundred eight thousand, three hundred fifty-six dollars and four cents ($ 208,356.04), plus costs, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Defendants' Rule 68 Offer of Judgment dated March 8, 2022 (ECF No. 258-1). IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/9/2022) Roger L. Stavis, Esq., Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, L.L.P. and Steven R. Kartagener terminated.
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER: The Court hereby schedules a final pretrial conference in this case for March 31, 2022, at 2 p.m. At this conference, the Court will, inter alia, resolve the pending motions in limine. See Dkts. 233-35, 240. The conference will be held in pe rson, in Courtroom 1305 at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York, 10007. The conference participants are directed to review the District's COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, which are available online at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus, to ensure that they will be able to gain access to the courthouse for the conference. Plaintiff Moreno-Godoy may participate by telephone at the conference, using dial-in 888-363-4749, and conference code 468-4906. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/7/2022) ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/31/2022 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1305, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
252
ORDER: On November 16, 2021, the Court set trial in this case to begin on April 11, 2022. See Dkt. 225. As the Court informed the parties, this was to be a firm trial date, subject only to the District's central scheduling of jury trials, a practice which has been continued for the second quarter of 2022. This case has been put on the jury trial list to begin that same week, on April 13, 2022. It is extremely likely to proceed to trial that day. As soon as the Court confirms that the matter will proceed on April 13, 2022, it will inform the parties. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/3/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH CLAIMS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT granting 227 Motion to Dismiss. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Re lief in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 96) are dismissed with each party to bear their own costs. Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief against Defendants Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP and Stavis and Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief against Defendant Kartagener are not dismissed and shall proceed to trial, which has been scheduled to commence on April 11, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/4/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER: At yesterday's conference, the Court adjourned, at the request of the parties, this case's provisional trial date, given the unavailability for medical reasons of trial counsel for defendant Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP. Trial fo r this case is now set to begin on April 11, 2022. This is a firm trial date, subject only to the District's central scheduling of jury trials, a practice which may or may not continue into the second quarter of 2022. The Court expects the par ties to secure the availability of all necessary witnesses for this week and to promptly advise the Court if there is an unavoidable conflict with this date. The revised Joint Pretrial Order, prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices governing trials, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-paul-engelmayer, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), will be due on February 22, 2022. Any motions in limine must also be filed by that date. Any oppositions to motions in limine are due March 1, 2022. The Court wishes all participants healthy and safe winter holidays. SO ORDERED. ( Pretrial Order due by 2/22/2022. Motions due by 2/22/2022. Responses due by 3/1/2022.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/17/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
223
ORDER: The Court has received word of an adverse medical development involving a participant in this case. The Court extends its best wishes for a speedy recovery. In light of this event, the Court hereby adjourns, sine die, the deadline for the fin al pretrial order, which was to be due on November 11, 2021. The Court will, however, maintain the conference scheduled for November 16, 2021, and will then take up matters including the implications for the trial in this case, which is provisionally scheduled for next month, see Dkt. 217. The Court expects at least one counsel for each party to attend such conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/10/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER: Trial in this case is provisionally scheduled for the week of December 13, 2021, although numerous cases are presently ahead of this one for that date. The Court hereby schedules the final pretrial conference in this case for November 18, 2021, at 11 a.m. The parties' revised Joint Pretrial Order is due November 11, 2021. By that date, the parties shall submit a Joint Pretrial Order prepared in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices governing trials, a vailable at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-paul-engelmayer, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). The conference will be held in person, in Courtroom 1305 at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York, 10007 . The conference participants are directed to review the District's COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, which are available online at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus, to ensure that they will be able to gain access to the courthouse for the conference. (As further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. ( Pretrial Order due by 11/11/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/18/2021 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1305, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/2/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
216
ORDER: The settlement conference in this case will be held via Teams. Plaintiff's counsel is encouraged to join Plaintiff at his place of incarceration. The Court recognizes the advantages of conducting the settlement conference in person ra ther than remotely; indeed, the Court prefers to, and usually does, conduct settlement conferences in person. Unfortunately, several factors, taken together, weigh in favor of conducting the conference remotely. Those factors include, among other s, unnecessary exposure of persons to Covid-related risk; potential for escape; resources required for transferring the Plaintiff from and to Alabama; the amount at stake; and the prospects for resolution. Plaintiff's counsel shall make all necessary arrangements for Plaintiff to be able to participate by Teams and shall apprise the Court of any proposed orders needed to ensure the Plaintiff's availability and participation. A Teams link will be provided to the parties in the near future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 9/27/2021) Copies Sent By Chambers. (vfr)
|
|
Filing
211
ORDER re: 210 Letter filed by Roger L. Stavis, Esq. In the interests of promoting settlement, the Court directs that counsel for all defendants promptly confer about potential settlement, and thereafter, that Mr. Stavis organize a settlement conference among defense and plaintiffs counsel. Further towards this end, the Court is issuing an order referring the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Hon. Robert W. Lehrburger, for settlement purposes. In the event that counsel are unable to settle this matter among themselves, counsel, consistent with the referral order, may wish to utilize Judge Lehrburger's good offices towards this end. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/2/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
208
ORDER: This case has been placed on the jury trial list for the week of December 13, 2021. The case must be trial-ready for that date. This case is a backup on the list for jury trials for that day. This means that the case will not proceed if a t rial scheduled ahead of this one goes forward. The Court is mindful that it is possible that a necessary participant may prove unavailable for trial that week. If the Court determines that the case cannot proceed on the scheduled date, it will see k another jury trial date for as soon as possible thereafter. As soon as the Court confirms that trial will proceed on the week of December 13, 2021, it will inform counsel and determine then whether any preclusive scheduling conflict exists. The C ami further reminds the patiies of its August 18, 2021 order, granting the motion of Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP ("GDB") to withdraw as Roger Stavis's counsel, effective August 27, 2021, unless GDB withdraws that motion. Dkt. 205. Hav ing not received any such filing from GDB, the Court grants GDB's motion to withdraw as Stavis's counsel. The Court will stay all proceedings in this case for two weeks, to give Stavis an opportunity to retain new counsel, should he so c hoose, in lieu of proceeding prose. See id. In the coming weeks, the Court will schedule a final pretrial conference to be held in person, in Courtroom 1305 at the Thmgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/30/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
195
ORDER: This Court intends to schedule trial in this case promptly. As a result of COVID-19 restrictions, jury trials in this District must be centrally scheduled far in advance. Applications by individual chambers for fourth-quarter trial s lots are due at the end of this week. To assist chambers in this process, the Court requests that counsel jointly advise the Court, by letter filed on the docket of this case by the close of business on Wednesday, August 11, 2021, whether there are any dates in October, November, or December 2021 on which necessary participants are unavailable for trial. The Court also directs counsel to confirm that a jury trial of approximately three days in length remains the parties' best estimate. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/9/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER: Barring settlement, the case will now proceed to trial. Before the Court can set a trial date a process which, pursuant to the District's COVID-19 protocols, entails centralized scheduling of jury trial dates the Court will need to confer with counsel about, inter alia, the availability of the parties, counsel, and necessary witnesses. For this purpose, the Court needs to ascertain which counsel will representing Moreno-Godoy at trial. Moreno-Godoy filed his complaint pro se, Dkt. 1, but on December 1, 2015, able pro bono counsel entered their notices of appearance on behalf of Moreno Godoy and thereafter represented him in this Court, Dkt. 67, 68, and separate pro bono counsel appeared for him on the recent appe al, see Dkt. 192. The Court directs both sets of plaintiffs' counsel to promptly confer, among themselves and with Moreno-Godoy, and by Friday, August 6, 2021, to submit a joint letter addressing whether either is or both are available and cl ient-approved to represent Moreno-Godoy at trial. Following receipt of this letter, the Court will determine next steps, including whether to seek to secure a jury trial date for the fourth quarter of 2021, as to which applications by the Court are due on August 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/30/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
188
OPINION & ORDER re: 177 MOTION in Limine . MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, L.L.P., 180 MOTION in Limine . MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steven R. Kartagener. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants' motions in limine and motions for summary judgment and dismisses Moreno-Godoy's remaining claims. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 177 and 180 and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 4/11/2019) (anc) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
139
OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, all three motions for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at docket numbers 132, 134, and 136. The case will now proceed to trial. The parti es are directed, by Friday, August 24, 2017, to submit a joint pretrial order, in compliance in the Court's individual rules. Any motions in limine are due along with the joint pretrial order. Any oppositions to those motions are due Friday, August 31, 2017. Upon receipt of these materials, the Court will schedule a pretrial conference and set a prompt trial date, and as further set forth in this order. (Motions due by 8/24/2017. Pretrial Order due by 8/24/2017. Responses due by 8/31/2017) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/28/2017) (ap)
|
|
Filing
131
OPINION AND ORDER re: 105 LETTER MOTION for Conference Requesting Pre-Motion Conference on Anticipated Motion for Summary Judgment and in Response to Defendants' Pre-Motion Letters addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from Mich ael Tremonte & Noam Biale dated 12 filed by Luis Felipe Moreno-Godoy, 117 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Steven R. Kartagener, 122 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Luis Felipe Moreno-Godoy, 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Roger L. Stavis, Esq., Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, L.L.P. For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies all summary judgment motions, save Stavis's motion-in his individual capacity-for summary judgment against Moreno-Godoy. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions pending at docket numbers 105, 114, 117, and 122. An order will follow shortly as to next steps in this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/29/2017) (cf)
|
|
Filing
95
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 86 Motion to Amend/Correct. For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Docket No. 86) is granted. The defendants' request to reopen discovery is granted, and all additional fact discovery shall be completed within sixty days of the date of this order. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 10/4/2016) (cf)
|
|
Filing
49
OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Godoy's motion for default judgment against Kartagener; grants defendants' motions to dismiss Godoy's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice; but denies d efendants' motions to dismiss Godoy's claims for breach of contract. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions pending at docket 11, 40, 41, and 43. An order will follow shortly as to next steps in this case. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/30/2015) (kl) (Main Document 49 replaced on 9/30/2015) (kl). Modified on 9/30/2015 (kl).
|
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.
