Garcia et al v. City of New York et al
| Kenneth Garcia, Judith Fadul, Yazmin De La Rosa and Celeste Crespo |
| City of New York, Michael Smyth, David Rojas, Patricio Ovando and Greg Larson |
| 1:2015cv07470 |
| September 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Unassigned |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
88
OPINION AND ORDER re: 73 MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 30/60 Days Amended Complaint filed by Judith Fadul, Celeste Crespo, Kenneth Garcia, Yazmin De La Rosa: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' request is GRANTED in part and D ENIED in part. Specifically, Plaintiffs' request to amend is: 1. DENIED with respect to the addition of Plaintiffs M.C., Brandon, and Randy. 2. DENIED with respect to the claims for failure to supervise (Paragraph 59 of the proposed SAC), neglig ence (Paragraph 62 of the proposed SAC), unlawful imprisonment (Paragraph 63 of the proposed SAC), negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Paragraph 64 of the SAC), and gross negligence (Paragraph 65 of the SAC). 3. DENIED with re spect to allegations of municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 4. GRANTED with respect to claims brought under § 1983 for illegal search and seizure (Paragraph 57 of the proposed SAC), m alicious prosecution (Paragraph 57(a) of the proposed SAC), conspiracy to present false testimony (Paragraph 58 of the proposed SAC), and conspiracy to unlawfully restrain, search, and charge Plaintiffs (Paragraph 60 of the proposed SAC). The parties are directed to appear for a conference on May 30, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 73, and to mail a copy of this opinion to Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Status Conference set for 5/30/2018 at 11:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/3/2018) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 46 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Patricio Ovando, Michael Smyth, City of New York: For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The denial is solely with respect to Defendants' request that the Court dismiss sua sponte all claims against Rojas and Larson. Plaintiffs are directed to serve Rojas and Larson in accordance with FRCP 4(m) no later than Tuesday, June 27, 2017. The Amended Complaint survives to the extent that it asserts Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims against the Officer Defendants. The parties are directed to appear for an initial pre-trial c onference on April 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 46. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Initial Conference set for 4/21/2017 at 11:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/28/2017) (jwh)
|
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.
