Schorr v. Prudenti et al
||David Evan Schorr
||A. Gail Prudenti, Jorge Dopico, Ernest J. Collazo and First Judicial Departmental Disciplinary Committee in New York State
||May 27, 2015
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
||Robert W. Sweet
|Nature of Suit:
||Other Civil Rights
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|September 7, 2016
OPINION. The motion to dismiss the § 1983 action is granted for failure to state a claim. Based on the conclusions set forth in this Opinion, the motion of the Defendants is granted, the SAC is dismissed with prejudice, and costs are granted to the Defendants. It is so ordered. re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction - Notice of Motion - filed by Jorge Dopico, Ernest J. Collazo. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/7/2016) (rjm)
|March 15, 2016
OPINION re: 9 MOTION to Dismiss -Notice of Motion- filed by Jorge Dopico, A. Gail Prudenti, First Judicial Departmental Disciplinary Committee in New York State, Ernest J. Collazo. Defendants A. Gail Prudenti, the former Chief Ad ministrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System ("Prudenti"); the First Judicial Department Disciplinary Committee (the "Disciplinary Committee"); Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel of the Disciplinary Committee ("Dopi co"); and Ernest J. Collazo, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee ("Collazo") (collectively, the "Defendants") have moved to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff David Evan Schorr ("Schorr" or the "Plaintiff&qu ot;) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The motion of the Defendants is granted and the Complaint is dismissed. Leave to replead within 20 days is granted. (As further set forth in this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/15/2016) (mro)
|September 25, 2015
OPINION: By letter dated September 17, 2015, the prose Plaintiff has requested a written opinion explaining the Court's bench ruling denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18). In response to hi s motion, the Court set oral argument for noon on September 16, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 19.) Counsel for the Defendants opposing the motion was present at that time when the case was called; the Plaintiff was not. His motion was therefore denied. See Loa dholt v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13 Civ. 567, 2014 WL 4980977, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014) (dismissing case based on failure to appear at a show cause hearing); Graham v. RJM Acquisition LLC, No. 11 Civ. 4682, 2012 WL 1865534, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2012) (same); see also Wacha v. Town of Deerpark, No. 06 Civ. 15531, 2008 WL 2061268, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/24/2015) (kgo)
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
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?