Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
| Heena Shim-Larkin |
| City of New York |
| 1:2016cv06099 |
| August 1, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Alison J. Nathan |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
888
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter at Dkt. No. 886. The issue of the public filing of a W-9 was not raised during the conference on March 6, 2024. Instead, what was discussed was that Plaintiff need not file a new W-9 and t he previously provided W-9 from 2019 was sufficient. To the extent that the W-9 is needed as an exhibit to the settlement agreement, it is appropriate that it be filed with the executed agreement. During the conference, this Court authorized filin g portions of the settlement agreement under seal such that Plaintiff's private information would not be viewable to the public. In this Court's view, the W-9 information would also be appropriately filed under seal and therefore not visible to the public. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis on 3/7/2024) (mml)
|
|
Filing
883
ORDER: This Court is in receipt of pro bono counsel's letter at Dkt. No. 882. By counsel's own admission, her motion to withdraw is pending before the Court and pro se Plaintiff terminated her services on February 26, 2024. On February 6 , 2024, while pro bono counsel was still representing Plaintiff in connection with settlement negotiations, pro se Plaintiff filed a letter with this Court raising a dispute regarding the settlement. Dkt. No. 873. This Court expects pro bono couns el to attend the virtual conference on March 6, 2024 to explain why she did not advise Plaintiff on the settlement paperwork and communication regarding the settlement agreement prior to her termination. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis on 2/28/2024) (tg)
|
|
Filing
870
ORDER OF DISMISSAL... The above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. Any ap plication to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same thirty-day period to be so-ordered by the Court. Per Rule IV(C) of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the Court will not retain jurisdi ction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 1/11/24) (yv)
|
|
Filing
869
ORDER: If the Parties feel that it would be productive to participate in court-assisted settlement, the Parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Christopher Davis via email by October 13, 2023 at WillisNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov t o provide three mutually agreeable dates in November, December, or January. Any conference will be held in-person at Courtroom 228, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. Should the Parties not wish to schedule a settlement conference at this time, the Parties should inform the Court via email by the same deadline. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 10/6/2023) (tg)
|
|
Filing
868
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 855 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION re: 814 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City of New York, 819 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. The parties' objections are oth erwise conclusory and general or restate the parties' original arguments. Wallace, 2014 WL 2854631, at *1; Bailey, 2014 WL 2855041, at *1. The Court has reviewed the remainder of the thorough and well-reasoned R&R for clear error and finds non e. For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES the parties' objections to the R&R and ADOPTS the R&R's conclusions. The Court shall issue a separate order setting a trial date and related pretrial deadlines in due course. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 814 and 819. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 9/26/2023) (jca)
|
|
Filing
847
ORDER granting 843 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The conference is adjourned until Monday, February 27, 2023 at 11:30 AM. The conference will be held in Courtroom 228, 40 Foley Square. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 2/27/2023 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 228, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 2/21/2023) (tg)
|
|
Filing
809
THIRD REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 808 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Any dispositive motion shall be served and filed on or before November 1, 2022; 2. the response to any such motion shall be served and filed on or before December 16, 2022; and 3. any reply shall be served and filed on or before January 6, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 9/2/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
807
ORDER: On August 26, 2022, the Parties filed a letter provided dates for which they are available for a rescheduled pre-motion conference. Dkt. No. 806. The Court will hold a conference in this matter on September 27, 2022 at 2:30 PM. The confe rence will be held in Courtroom 228, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. SO ORDERED. ( Status Conference set for 9/27/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 228, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 8/29/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
803
SECOND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 802 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Any dispositive motion shall be served and filed on or before September 12, 2022; 2. the response to any such motion shall be served and filed on or before October 27, 2022; and 3. any reply shall be served and filed on or before November 17, 2022. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 8/2/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
801
ORDER granting 800 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. On July 27, 2022, the Parties filed a letter requesting the adjournment of a conference. Dkt. No. 800. The adjournment is GRANTED. The conference will take place on August 22, 2022, at 2:00 PM. The conference will be held in Courtroom 228, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the letter motion at Dkt. No. 800. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 8/22/2022 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 228, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 8/1/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
799
ORDER: The Court will hold a conference in this matter on August 12, 2022 at 10:30 AM. The conference will be held in Courtroom 228, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. ( Status Conference set for 8/12/2022 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 228, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 7/27/2022) (ate)
|
|
Filing
794
ORDER granting 784 Motion for Attorney Fees. The total sum of costs identified by Plaintiff pursuant to the September 14, 2020 Order is $267.11. Plaintiff is awarded these expenses. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 784. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 6/10/2022) (tg) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
793
ORDER: On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting clarification of the summary judgment briefing schedule. Dkt. No. 792. For now, this Court will hold to the schedule set forth by Judge Nathan. Should modification be required, the Parties may seek such relief when that becomes clear. The Court will also refrain from scheduling a pre-motion conference until the Parties are ready to proceed with summary judgment. Should the Parties have any discovery disputes requiring interv ention from the Court, they are welcome to file letter motions describing the nature of the disagreement and requesting a conference to resolve any outstanding issues. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 6/7/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
787
ORDER with respect to 784 Motion for Attorney Fees. On May 10, 2022, this case was referred for General Pretrial, a Report & Recommendation on a Motion for an Award of Expenses, and Report & Recommendations on anticipated motions for summary jud gment. Dkt. No. 786. On May 7, 2022, Plaintiff submitted her motion for an Award of Expenses in accordance with the Order dated September 14, 2020. Dkt. No. 784. If the Defendant would like to challenge the reasonableness of the expenses alleged by Plaintiff, such opposition shall be filed on or before May 25, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 5/11/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
782
ORDER denying 768 Motion for Reconsideration re 768 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 764 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is den ied. This resolves docket number 768. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). All outstanding discovery dispu tes and pending motions are now resolved. The parties are ordered to file a joint letter by May 6, 2022, proposing a schedule for briefing any anticipated summary judgment motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation Alison J. Nathan on 4/27/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
767
ORDER granting 766 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File motion for reconsideration of the order dated October 18, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/25/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
764
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Rule 72(a) objection is DENIED. This resolves Docket Number 750. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, so in forma pauperis status is denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully asked to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and note the mailing on the public docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/18/2021) (vfr) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
747
ORDER granting 745 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to the order dated November 24, 2020 addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated February 17, 2021. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/17/2021) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
740
ORDER granting 738 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/25/2021) (ks)
|
|
Filing
729
ORDER granting 728 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to the order dated November 24, 2020 addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated January 11, 2021. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/12/2021) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
725
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 675. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). So ordered. re: 675 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 666 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
720
ORDER granting 717 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to the order dated November 24, 2020 addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated December 16, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/16/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
709
ORDER. Plaintiff's request to stay all proceedings until thirty days after resolution of Plaintiff's pending motion to recuse the Undersigned, Dkt. No. 704, is denied. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a Rule 72(a) o bjection to the November 24, 2020 Order from December 8, 2020 to December 24, 2020, Dkt. No. 707, is granted. Defendant's request for an extension of time to file a an opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 72(a) objection to Magistrate Judge Fox&# 039;s April 14, 2020 order from December 7, 2020 to December 18, 2020, Dkt. No. 708, is granted. SO ORDERED. Denying 704 LETTER MOTION to Stay all proceedings before Hon. Alison J. Nathan until 30 days after the resolution of 699 MOTION to Disqua lify Judge Hon. Alison J. Nathan addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated November 22, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin; Granting 707 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to November 24, 2020 order addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim Larkin dated November 29, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin; Granting 708 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 705 Objection (non-motion) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Dominique F. Saint-Fort dated November 30, 2020. Document filed by City of New York. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
698
ORDER granting 696 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. A telephone conference will be held with the parties on November 24, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. The parties are directed to call (888) 557-8511 and, thereafter, enter access code 48625 32. Please be advised that a court reporter will attend the conference via telephone. (Telephone Conference set for 11/24/2020 at 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 11/12/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
692
ORDER granting 688 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to April 14, 2020 order addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated October 27, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/27/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
674
ORDER. The Court issues this order to clarify its responses to Plaintiff's letters. In response to Plaintiff's October 3, 2020 letter, the Court orders that Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Rule 72(a) objection is due October 1 6, 2020, and Defendant's Reply is due October 23, 2020. In response to Plaintiff's October 5, 2020 letter, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to the April 14, 2020 order until November 2, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/12/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
672
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 671 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's objections are due on October 16, 2020. Defendant's reply is due on October 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/6/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
666
OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff's objections at Dkt. No. 536. The Court denies Plaintiff's objections at Dkt. No. 586. The Court denies Plaintiff's objections at Dkt. No. 594. The Court grants Defendant's objections at Dkt. No. 476. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's objections at Dkt. No. 557. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/28/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
663
ORDER. On September 18, 2020, the Court received Defendant's Letter Motion to Stay the Order granting Motion for Sanctions from September 14, 2020. The Court received Plaintiff's Letter Response in Opposition on September 21, 2020. Because objections to the Order are forthcoming, the request to stay is granted. SO ORDERED. Granting 659 LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 657 Order on Motion for Sanctions addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Eric Eichenholtz dated September 18, 2020. Document filed by City of New York. re: 657 Order on Motion for Sanctions. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/23/2020). (rjm)
|
|
Filing
658
ORDER: granting 656 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/15/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
657
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 602 Motion for Sanctions. For the reasons set forth above, Shim-Larkin's sanction motion, Docket Entry No. 602, isgranted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 9/14/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
655
ORDER granting 654 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to April 14, 2020 order addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated September 1, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
653
ORDER granting 651 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/21/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
650
ORDER granting 649 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/24/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
647
ORDER granting 646 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/17/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
645
ORDER granting 640 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/24/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
638
ORDER granting 637 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to April 14, 2020 order addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated June 1, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/4/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
635
ORDER granting 634 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection to April 14, 2020 order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/19/2020) (jca) Modified on 5/20/2020 (jca).
|
|
Filing
633
ORDER re: 631 Letter filed by City of New York. The defendant requested, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 631, that it be permitted to redact "highly sensitive information" from a document, before disclosing the do cument to the plaintiff, because the defendant wishes to keep the information to be redacted confidential. The plaintiff opposed the request, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 632. A protective order, Docket Entry No.64, was iss ued by the Court to safeguard the exchange of confidential information by the parties to this action. The defendant acknowledges the existence of the protective order, and does not claim that the order fails to accomplish what the defendant seeks through the May 12, 2020 request: the ability to keep confidential "highly sensitive information" exchanged by the parties to this action. In the absence of any claim by the defendant that the protective order does not allow for the exch ange of confidential information by the parties to this action, granting the defendant's request is not warranted. Therefore, the defendant's request is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/13/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
627
ORDER: The plaintiff filed a declaration, Docket Entry No. 604, on February 28, 2020, in support of a motion for sanctions, Docket Entry No. 602. Exhibits 6 and 13 to the declaration are not visible, when accessed via the docket sheet maintaine d by the Clerk of Court for this action. Therefore, on or before April 27, 2020, the plaintiff shall file with the Clerk of Court a copy of Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 13 to the above-referenced declaration, so that each may be examined by the Court as it analyzes the sanctions motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 4/23/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
625
ORDER granting 624 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection concerning April 14, 2020 order addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated April 16, 2020. Document filed by Heena Shim Larkin. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/20/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
620
ORDER: A telephone conference shall be held in the above-captioned case on April 14, 2020, at 11:00 a..m. The parties shall use call-in number (888)557-8511 and access code 4862532. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 4/14/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge Alison J. Nathan.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 4/9/2019) (jca)
|
|
Filing
615
ORDER re: 610 Letter filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. The parties shall comply with the Court's existing Individual Rules of Practice. This order addresses the plaintiff's request at Docket Entry No. 610. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 3/15/2020) (va) Modified on 3/16/2020 (va).
|
|
Filing
593
ORDER: Therefore, the defendant is directed to tender to the plaintiff $35.10, in addition to the amount the defendant was directed to tender to the plaintiff in the Court's January 7, 2020 Amended Memorandum and Order, Docket Entry No. 580 . SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 1/28/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
582
ORDER granting 581 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 72(a) objection. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
580
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) and the Court's inherent authority, Shim-Larkin is awarded $114.90, the reasonable expenses she incurred in connection with the February 23, 2019 spoliation motion for: (1) printing ($41.40); (2) traveling to the courthouse ($66.00); and (3) preparing courtesy copies of documents for deposit at the courthouse ($7.50). The defendant is directed to tender $114.90 to Shim-Larkin within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 1/7/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
578
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 554 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the reasons set forth above, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) and the Court's inherent authority, Shim-Larkin is awarded $114.90, the reaso nable expenses she incurred in connection with the February 32, 2019 spoliation motion for: (1) printing ($41.40); (2) traveling to the courthouse ($66.00); and (3) preparing courtesy copies of documents for deposit at the courthouse (&# 036;7.50). The defendant is directed to tender $114.90 to Shim-Larkin within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 1/3/2020) (ks) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
572
ORDER granting 571 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/4/2019) (kv)
|
|
Filing
551
ORDER. For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice her claims for front pay and back pay after summer 2016. These claims will be dismissed with prejudice unless Plaintiff files a letter w ithin two weeks of this Opinion and Order stating that she wishes to withdraw this instant motion. This letter shall be no more than one page in length. This resolves docket item number 423. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 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 w hen he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. re: 423 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs relief for backpay and front pay for the period of 2016 summer and after, without prejudice filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/24/2019) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
509
ORDER denying 434 Motion for Sanctions. For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs motion to compel and for sanctions, Docket Entry No. 434, is denied. On or before June 27, 2019, the plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why she should not be required to pay the defendant its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. The defendant may file a response on or before July 1, 2019 and any reply shall be filed on or before July 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 6/20/2019) (anc)
|
|
Filing
492
OPINION & ORDER re: 329 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for an Award of Expenses re: 319 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 338 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions re: 331 Objection re: 319 Order on Motion for Sanc tions, Order on Motion to Compel. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. For the reasons given above, Defendant's objections are denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff's cross-motion for sanctions is denied. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff $300 in costs. This resolves docket numbers 329 and 338. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/27/2019) (kv)
|
|
Filing
458
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, re: 386 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 385 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on 283 Objection re: 267 Memo Endorsement. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 259 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions re: 251 FIRST LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox from Dominique F. Saint-Fort dated April 17, 2018. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 355 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions re: 350 Objection re: 334 Order on Motion for Protect ive Order. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 402 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Heena Shim-Larkin dated October 22, 2018. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 271 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION for Sanctions re: 259 CROSS MOTION for Sanctions. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 394 SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re; 385 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on 283 Objection re: 267 Memo Endorsement. filed by Heena Shim-Larkin, 278 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. Having reviewed Plaintiff's two motions for reconsideration and the parties' briefing, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary to the resolution of these motio ns. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet the "strict" standard of a motion for reconsideration. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 13, 2012). This reso lves docket items numbers 386, 394, and 402. Furthermore, given the relevance of the Court's September 27, 2018, order to several of Plaintiff's previous motions for sanctions, Dkt. Nos. 259,271, and 278, the Court hereby administratively d enies these motions without prejudice. An administrative denial does not pass any judgment on the merits of a motion. Instead it serves, as here, to ensure that issues before the Court are cleanly presented, avoiding duplication and confusion. Plain tiff will have leave to refile as described in further detail below. This resolves docket items numbers 259,271, and 278, as further set forth in this Order. Within three weeks of the date of this order, Plaintiff may file a single motion addressing any issues from docket items 259,271,278, and 355 that remain in light of the Court's September 27, 2018, order and the instant order. This motion shall be no more than fifteen pages in length and shall fully comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.1. Failure to comply with these rules or the filing of duplicative motions may result in the dismissal of those motions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/13/2019) (kv)
|
|
Filing
450
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 372 Motion for Sanctions. For the reasons set forth above, Shim-Larkin's sanctions motion, Docket Entry No. 372, is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The period for completing pretrial discovery activities is reopened, until February 27, 2019, solely for the purpose of deposing Lt. Kalicovic. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 2/5/2019) (anc)
|
|
Filing
385
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 160 Motion for Sanctions; denying 239 Motion for Sanctions; denying 325 Motion for Sanctions. The Defendant's objections of December 5, 2017 are denied. This resolves docket number 155. The Plaintiff's December 11, 2017 cross-motion for sanctions is denied. This resolves docket number 160. The Plaintiff's February 2, 2018 objections are denied. This resolves docket number 196. The Plaintiff's March 27, 2018 objections are denied. This resolves docket number 233. The Defendant's objections of March 30, 2018 are denied. This resolves docket number 236. The Plaintiff's April 6, 2018 cross-motion for sanctions is denied. This resolves docket number 239. The Defendant' ;s May 14, 2018 objection is granted. The Defendant is not required to respond to the Plaintiff's twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth sets of discovery requests. This resolves docket number 283. The Defendant's July 5, 2018 objection is denied. This resolves docket number 322. The Plaintiff's July 6, 2018 cross-motion for sanctions is denied. This resolves docket number 325. Chambers will mail a copy of this order to the pro se litigant and note its mailing on the public docket. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/27/2018) Copies Will Be Mailed By Chambers. (cf)
|
|
Filing
319
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 152 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part 152 Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth above, the motion to compel, Docket Entry No. 152, is granted, in part , and denied, in part. The defendant shall, on or before July 9, 2018, answer Shim-Larkin's first set of interrogatories fully. Shim-Larkin shall, on or before July 9, 2018, file with the court competent evidence, via affidavit or otherwise, e stablishing the reasonable expenses she incurred as a result of the defendant's failure to answer her first set of interrogatories fully. Any challenge by the defendant to the reasonableness of those expenses shall be filed on or before July 16, 2018 and any reply shall be filed on or before July 20, 2018. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 6/28/2018) (anc)
|
|
Filing
185
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 136 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 133 Order, MOTION for Reargument re: 133 Order, filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. This resolves Docket Number 136. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A copy of this order will be mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/16/2018) (mml)
|
|
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 72 Objection (non-motion) filed by Heena Shim-Larkin. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order are denied. A copy of this Order will be mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/25/2017) (anc)
|
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
| Search for this case: Shim-Larkin v. City of New York | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Heena Shim-Larkin | |
| 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: City of New York | |
| Represented By: | Scott Craig Silverman |
| 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.
