Rodriguez et al v. Torres-Springer et al
| Robert Rodriguez and Elaine Pinnock |
| Maria Torres-Springer, Ben Carson, United States Department of Housing & Urban Development and New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development |
| 1:2017cv04344 |
| June 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
126
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction is GRANTED. By separate Order, the Court will enjoin Defendants to remit $7200 to Plaintiff Rodriguez and $8798 to Plaintiff Pichardo within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/14/19) (yv)
|
|
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 111 MOTION for Permanent Injunction . filed by Robert Rodriguez, Jovanny Pichardo. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED as to the relief sought re lating to Fiscal Years 2011-2018. The Court, however, defers decision with respect to Fiscal Year 2019 pending further briefing from the parties. No later than July 30, 2019, the parties shall submit supplemental briefs, not to exceed seven pages e ach (exclusive of any attached supplemental affidavits), addressing the following factual and legal questions: 1) Whether the HAP renewal funding appropriated for Fiscal Year 2019 has been disbursed, not just contractually obligated, see Fontanez D ecl. 4, and if so, how much of it; 2) Whether the rule adopted in County of Suffolk, 605 F.3d 135, extends to funds contractually obligated but not yet disbursed, cf. City of Houston, 24 F.3d at 1426-27; 3) Whether any or all of the Fiscal Year 2 019 TPV appropriation described in paragraph 3 of the Fontanez Declaration has been disbursed and how much remains; and 4) Whether the 2019 HUD Appropriations Act authorizes the use of such TPV funding for tenants in Plaintiffs' situation, and if not, why not. See 133 Stat. at 435 (providing that $85,000 shall be for... enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such assistance under Section 8(t) of the [Housing] Act). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 111. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/23/2019) (js)
|
|
Filing
105
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment in favor of the Federal Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims against them filed by United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, Ben Carson, 71 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgmen t filed by New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, Maria Torres-Springer, 81 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Elaine Pinnock, Robert Rodriguez, Jovanny Pichardo. For the reasons given and to the extent set forth above, Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the City Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and the Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Pi nnock and DENIED as to Rodriguez and Pichardo. In light of that, and given that there is no need for the Court to reach Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, the second, third, and fourth Causes of Action in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are D ISMISSED without prejudice, and both HPD and its Commissioner are dismissed as parties to this action. (In light of that, there is no need to formally substitute Interim Commissioner Enderlin on the docket.) The Court will modify the caption of the c ase accordingly. With respect to the Federal Defendants, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment with respect to Rodriguez and Pichardo, dismisses Pinnock's claims without prejudice, and reserves judgment on whether any additional relief is warranted. Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants shall promptly confer with respect to the need or basis for any additional relief (aside from attorney's fees and costs) and, no later than April 12, 2019, submit a joint letter to the Court addressing those issues and, as appropriate, how the Court should proceed. If the parties agree that judgment should be entered on the basis of this Opinion and Order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), they should submit a proposed judgm ent by the same date. Finally, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, Plaintiffs shall file any application for attorney's fees and costs within thirty days of the judgment in this case becoming final and not appealable; any opposition sha ll be filed within two weeks of the application; and any reply shall be filed within one week of the opposition. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above; to terminate Pinnock, HPD, and Maria Torres-Springer as parties t o this action; and to terminate Docket Nos. 71, 75, and 81. SO ORDERED., Maria Torres-Springer (in her capacity as Commissioner for the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development), New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development and Elaine Pinnock terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/29/2019) (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.
