Jiggetts v. United Parcel Service et al
| James Jiggetts |
| United Parcel Service, D. Scott Davis and Davis Abney |
| 1:2014cv08291 |
| October 10, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Westchester |
| Unassigned |
| 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
62
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: granting 37 Motion to Dismiss; granting 39 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to replead his claims and yet he still fails to plausibly, and clearly, allege any claim under the statutes enumer ated in his Amended Complaint against any of the Defendants. Thus, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint. Unless otherwise noted, all claims discussed in this opinion are dismissed with prejudice, meaning Plaintiff may not make further attempts t o replead those claims. Should the Plaintiff seek to amend his complaint to add any additional claims not dismissed with prejudice in this Order, he must do so on or before April 17, 2017. This will constitute the Plaintiff's final opportunity t o replead as to any claims not dismissed with prejudice. Failure to plausibly or decipherably plead such claims will result in dismissal without further opportunity to replead. Further, Plaintiff is hereby advised that any new amended complaint will completely replace the Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should include all of the information he believes is necessary to make a short, plain statement explaining why he is entitled to relief against any Defendant as to any claim the Court does not dismiss with prejudice in this Order. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/27/2017) (ama)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER: The Court DENIES the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against the UPS Defendants. Further, in its May 10, 2016 order, the Court stayed the deadline for responding to the UPS Defendants' motion to dismiss until after resolution of the pending motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 45. The Court hereby lifts that stay, and orders that, if Plaintiff wishes to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, such response is due on or before February 14, 2017. Any reply from the UPS Defendants will be due on or before February 28, 2017.The Court reminds the UPS Defendants that deadlines will be strictly enforced.SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 2/14/2017, Replies due by 2/28/2017.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/17/2017) (ama)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER. In light of the fact that Jiggetts's proposed second amended complaint is legible, lists several statutes under which he brings suit, and includes a letter with factual allegations that may possibly raise claims for relief, the Court cons trues Jiggetts's opposition as a request to file an amended complaint and grants that request. Accordingly, the second amended complaint, filed as Docket No. 27, shall be the operative pleading in this case going forward. The Court therefore adm inistratively denies the UPS Defendants' motion to dismiss. The UPS Defendants shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to either file a new motion to dismiss, indicate that they are relying on their existing motion to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint.This resolves Docket No. 17. Denying 17 Motion to Dismiss. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/23/2016) (rjm)
|
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.
