Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein et al
| Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak |
| Judith A. Stein and Gianni Faedda |
| 1:2015cv01670 |
| March 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Loretta A. Preska |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
108
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 107 MOTION to Strike Document No. [#37 and #67]. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 103 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak, 106 MOTION to Stay. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has failed to make such a showing, and has not pointed to any information that "might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by th e court." Id. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 105, is therefore denied. The plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the defendants motions to dismiss. Those motions have already been decided, and the plaintiffs motion is therefor e denied as moot. The plaintiff has failed to show what irreparable injury would result from the dismissal of her case in this court, which dismissal was thoroughly justified. The application for a stay, ECF No. 106, is therefore denied. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/5/2017) (cf)
|
|
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has received the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, ECF No. 101. Rule 60 (b) ( 4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to order relief from a final judgment if "the judgment is void." A judgment is void only if "the Court lacked jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter, or both," or if the Court "acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3 d 21, 23 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff argues that her August 26, 2016 appeal of certain non-final orders deprived the Court of jurisdiction over the case. But the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on January 11, 2017, prior to the entry of judgment. See Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein, 16-3052, Dkt. No. 37 (Jan. 11, 2017); ECF No. 100 (entered February 21, 2017). The plaintiff has therefore failed to make a showing that the judgment is void, or that there are any other grounds for relief from the judgment. The motion to reopen is therefore denied. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 101. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/21/2017) (ap)
|
|
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #107053 re: 96 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 94 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 96. The Court has also entered a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/20/2017) (cf) Modified on 2/21/2017 (ap).
|
|
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 92 MOTION for Recusal. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. The Court has received the plaintiff's motion for the Court to recuse itself, ECF No. 92. The gist of the plaintiff's argument is that the defendants' letters to the Court have been "ex parte and inflammatory," and prevent the Court from being fair and impartial. (As further set forth in this Order.) There is no basis to believe the Court is biased in any way. The Cour t will continue to decide all matters in this case based solely on the facts presented and the law and will continue to be fair to all parties. The motion for recusal is denied. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 92. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/20/2017) (cf)
|
|
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Nancy Rubenstein. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The Clerk of Court is instructed to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms f or Defendants Stein and Faedda, issue a summons for each Defendant, and deliver to the Marshals Service all the of the paperwork necessary in order that these Defendants may be served. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any ap peal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Nancy B. Rubenstein (M.D.) terminated. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/21/2015) (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.
