Atencio v. U.S. Postal Service

Atencio v. U.S. Postal Service

Plaintiff:	Zoila D. Atencio
Defendant:	U.S. Postal Service
Case Number:	1:2014cv07929
Filed:	October 1, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit:	Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12112
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
August 4, 2016	Filing 82 OPINION & ORDER re: 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by U.S. Postal Service. For the reasons set forth above, USPS's summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 68) is GRANTED as to Atencio's reasonable accommodation claim, a nd DENIED as to her retaliation claim. The Joint Pretrial Order is due August 30, 2016. The Court will hold the final pretrial conference in this matter on September 8, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Pretrial Order due by 8/30/2016., Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2016 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 8/4/2016) (kl)
November 19, 2015	Filing 34 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by U.S. Postal Service. For the reasons outlined above, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 25. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/19/2015) (kko)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 4, 2016

Filing 82 OPINION & ORDER re: 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by U.S. Postal Service. For the reasons set forth above, USPS's summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 68) is GRANTED as to Atencio's reasonable accommodation claim, a nd DENIED as to her retaliation claim. The Joint Pretrial Order is due August 30, 2016. The Court will hold the final pretrial conference in this matter on September 8, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Pretrial Order due by 8/30/2016., Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2016 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 8/4/2016) (kl)

November 19, 2015

Filing 34 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by U.S. Postal Service. For the reasons outlined above, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 25. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/19/2015) (kko)

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: Atencio v. U.S. Postal Service
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Zoila D. Atencio
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 ]
Defendant: U.S. Postal Service
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?