Maradiaga et al v. City of New York et al
| Jeronimo Maradiaga, Cosme Del Rosario-Bell, Randolph Carr and Kevin Park |
| City of New York, Kevin Cox, John Doe and John Does |
| 1:2016cv08325 |
| October 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| George B. Daniels |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
178
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: denying 164 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to vacate this Court's October 1, 2020 order and reopen this action, (ECF No. 164), is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/01/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
177
ORDER: The status conference scheduled for June 1, 2022 is canceled. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/26/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
175
ORDER: A conference is scheduled for June 1, 2022 at 9:45 a.m. SO ORDERED., ( Status Conference set for 6/1/2022 at 09:45 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/14/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER: granting 132 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 132 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 132 CONSENT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from David B. Rankin dated January 7, 2020 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from David B. Rankin dated January 7, 2020. Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 132), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' reply is due by January 29, 2020. Oral argument on Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is adjourned from April 7, 2020 to April 15, 2020 at 10:30 am. SO ORDERED.( Oral Argument set for 4/15/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels., Replies due by 1/29/2020.). (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/08/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER: granting 125 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 125 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 125 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference (joint request to adjourn December 18, 2019 conference) addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Jorge Marquez dated December 3, 2019. LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Defendants; first request to extend response deadline from December 6, 2019, until December 13, 2019) addressed to Judg e George B. Daniels from Jorge Marquez dated December 3, 2019. Defendants' request for an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and to Plaintiffs'; cross-motion f or summary judgment, (ECF No. 125), is GRANTED. Defendants' responses are due by December 13, 2019. Plaintiffs' reply is due by January 10, 2020. Oral argument will be held on Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' ; cross-motion for summary judgment on April 7, 2020 at 10:30 am. The status conference scheduled for December 18, 2019 is canceled. SO ORDERED. ( Oral Argument set for 4/7/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels., Responses due by 12/13/2019, Replies due by 1/10/2020.). (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/04/2019) (ama)
|
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.
