Rattray v. Cadavid et al
| Wentworth Rattray |
| Cadavid, Mervin Bautista, Alyssa Trigueno and The City of New York |
| 1:2017cv08560 |
| November 2, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Colleen McMahon |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1932 |
| 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
281
JUDGMENT: It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That after a Jury Trial before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge, the jury having returned a verdict in favor of Defendants, the Complaint is hereby dismissed. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/5/2023) (ate)
|
|
Filing
270
ORDER denying without prejudice 268 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion is denied without prejudice. Defendants' sealing motion does not meet the requirements set out in this Court's Individual Rule of Practice II.B., which requires t hat "any redaction or sealing of a court filing [] be narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents." J. Gardephe Individual Rule II.B. (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Defendants do not explain how sealing Officer Cadavid's disciplinary record complies with the Lugosch standard. Further, to th e extent that Defendants' motion is premised on a protective order issued in this case, Rule II.B. also provides that "[i]n general, the parties' consent or the fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement betwee n litigants is not, by itself, a valid basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents." Id. (citing In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015)). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 268. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/24/2023) (ate)
|
|
Filing
269
ORDER. The parties will submit letters further addressing the admissibility of Plaintiff's Exhibits 10-16 by August 25, 2023 at noon. In these letters the parties will address whether the transcripts Plaintiff seeks to introduce are hearsay and whether they require authentication, citing supporting case law. Department's request for certain "certified medical records of Wentworth Rattray" and a HIPAA release which appears to have been signed by Plaintiff. (Id. at 5-6) Defendants will state in their August 25, 2023 letter whether they agree with Plaintiff's account of how Plaintiff's medical records came into Defendants' possession. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/23/23) (yv)
|
|
Filing
266
ORDER: There will be a final pretrial conference in this matter on August 25, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 705 of the Thurgood Marshal United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. SO ORDERED., ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2023 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 705, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/17/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
261
ORDER granting 259 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's motion for leave to submit certain trial exhibits redacted and under seal (Dkt. No. 259) is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 8/11/2023) (jca)
|
|
Filing
246
ORDER: granting 245 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Application is Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 7/28/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
241
ORDER granting 234 Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 239 Motion to Continue. As discussed at the June 1, 2023 conference, trial in this matter is adjourned to August 29, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 705 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The parties are directed to comply with this Court's Individual Rules concerning the preparation of a pre-trial order. The joint pre-trial order, motions in limine, proposed voir dire, a nd requests to charge are due by July 28, 2023. Responsive papers, if any, are due by August 4, 2023. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 6/5/2023) ( Jury Trial set for 8/29/2023 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 705, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe., Motions due by 7/28/2023., Pretrial Order due by 7/28/2023., Responses due by 8/4/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing
240
ORDER granting 239 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The deadline to submit a joint pre-trial order is adjourned sine die. The May 31, 2023 conference is adjourned to June 1, 2023 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom 705 of the Thurgood Marshall Unite d States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. At that conference, the Court will discuss with the parties their respective requests to adjourn trial and will set new deadlines for pretrial submissions. SO ORDERED. Status Conference set for 6/1/2023 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 705, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 5/26/2023) (kv)
|
|
Filing
238
ORDER with respect to 234 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; with respect to 235 Letter Motion to Compel. MEMO ENDORSED: There will be a conference in this matter on May, 31, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 705 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. By May 26, 2023 Plaintiff will make a submission responding to Defendant's letter motions (Dkt. Nos. 234, 235). (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 5/25/2023) (tro)
|
|
Filing
228
ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference in this matter is scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17-D, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.Parties must attend in-person wi th their counsel. Corporate parties must send the person with decision making authority to settle the matter to the conference. The parties are instructed to complete the Settlement Conference Summary Report and prepare pre-conference submissions in accordance with the Judge Parker's Individual Rules of Practice. Pre-conference submissions must be received by the Court no later than May 4, 2023 by 5:00 p.m. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. ( Settlement Conference set for 5/11/2023 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 17D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 4/11/2023) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
225
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER for 221 Report and Recommendations,,,, Judge Parkers R&R (Dkt. No. 221) is adopted in part, as set forth above. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is (1) denied as to Plaintiff Rattray's claim against Officer Cadavid for unlawful search; (2) granted as to Rattray's claim against Officer Trigueno for unlawful search; (3) denied as to Rattray's claim against Officer Trigueno for failure to intervene in Officer Cadavid's alleged unlawf ul search; and (4) denied as to Rattray's claims against Officer Cadavid for false arrest and against Officer Trigueno for failure to intervene with respect to Officer Cadavid's alleged false arrest. This case will proceed to trial on May 15, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 705 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The parties are directed to comply with this Court's Individual Rules concerning the preparation of a pretrial order. The joint pretrial order, motions in limine, voir dire requests, and requests to charge are due on April 17, 2023. Responsive papers, if any, are due on April 24, 2023. There will be a final pretrial conference on May 12, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in C ourtroom 705. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 206), and to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/30/2023) ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/12/2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 705, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe., Jury Trial set for 5/15/2023 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 705, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
220
OPINION: Accordingly, the deposition transcript is an unsworn declaration made under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. It is not relevant that Ms. Sandy's signature was not notarized, because 28 U.S.C. § 1746 does not require that unsworn declarations made under the penalty of perjury be notarized. Under federal law, unsworn declarations made under the penalty of perjury have the same evidentiary weight as affidavits. 28 U.S.C. § 1746; see also Ruffin v. Rana, 2013 WL 4834368, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2013); Williams v. Elzy, 2003 WL 22208349, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2003). Thus, even though Plaintiff did not obtain a proper court reporter or a notarized attestation from Ms. Sandy, her testim ony nevertheless can and should be considered in connection with the motion for summary judgment as an unsworn declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. For these reasons, Defendant's request at ECF 204 is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 9/14/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
215
ORDER: On April 15, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF Nos. 206, 207.) Local Rule 56.1 requires that "[u]pon any motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, there s hall be annexed to the notice of motion a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried," ("Rule 56.1 statement"). U. S. Dist. Ct. Rules S.& E.D.N.Y., Civ Rule 56.1(a). In their moving brief, Defendants reference their Rule 56.1 statement, but no Rule 56.1 statement is on the docket. In light of what appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of Defendants, the Court directs Defendants to file their Rule 56.1 statement on the docket by Wednesday, August 10, 2022. By Wednesday, August 24, 2022, Plaintiff may file a response to Defendant's Rule 56.1 statement that consists of correspondingly nu mbered paragraphs responding to each numbered paragraph in Defendants' statement, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried. U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules S.& E.D.N.Y., Civ Rule 56.1. Because Plaintiff has already submitted a statement consisting of numbered paragraphs that presents Plaintiff's position regarding which facts are dispu ted and which are not, Plaintiff may choose not to respond to Defendant's Rule 56.1 statement, and the Court will construe his existing statement as a response thereto. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 8/8/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
210
ORDER granting 209 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants to Summary Judgement addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from Wentworth Rattray, Pro Se Plaintiff dated 05/16/2022. APPLICATION GRANTED. P laintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by May 23, 2022. Defendants shall file their reply by June 7, 2022. As the undersigned is referred for General Pretrial and the Motion for Summary Judgment, parties a re reminded to address correspondence regarding such matters to the undersigned. 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. ( Responses due by 5/23/2022, Replies due by 6/7/2022.). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/23/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
198
ORDER granting 197 Letter Motion for Discovery; granting 197 Letter Motion to Compel. APPLICATION GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to serve this on the witness. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/31/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER terminating 189 Motion for Reconsideration re: 188 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Cadavid, Alyssa Trigueno; granting 192 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. A telephonic case management conference was held on January 19, 2022 whereby the Court provided a verbal ruling on Defendants Motions at ECF Nos. 189 and 192. Accordingly, the following deadlines were determined at the conference: Plaintiff must draft an order with directions for the non-party witness to pr ovide attestation to the deposition transcript and upload it to ECF by January 26, 2022.Defendants' response/ opposition due February 2, 2022. Defendants' summary judgment motion will proceed on the following schedule: Moving papers ar e due 30 days after the provision of the attestation or by April 15, 2022, whichever is earlier. Plaintiff will have 30 days to respond, Defendants will have 15 days to reply. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate motions at ECF Nos. 189 and 192. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 4/15/2022.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/19/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER: A telephonic Case Management conference is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. At this conference, the Court will discuss Defendant's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 189.), Defendant's request for a cop y of the deposition transcript of the non-party witness (ECF No. 192.), and set a new briefing schedule for Defendant's summary judgment motion. The parties' are directed to call into the court conference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269 Code: 4858267. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/13/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER RESCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: The telephonic Case Management conference in this matter scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:15 p.m. is hereby rescheduled to Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:30 a.m. T he parties' are directed to call into the court conference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269 Code: 4858267. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 1/19/2022 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/11/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
188
OPINION re: 182 LETTER MOTION to Compel addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Andrey Udalov dated November 24, 2021. filed by Cadavid, Alyssa Trigueno. Additionally, from the beginning of the case, Defendants could have requested Plaintiff's communications with the non-party witness, as well as confirm the viability of the visitation court order regarding Plaintiff's visitation rights for the day of the alleged incident. There is no reason wh y the Defendants should be permitted to now receive this information at this late stage when the parties are in the midst of summary judgment briefing. Overall, Defendants fail to show good cause to reopen discovery and also fail to show that th e requested discovery is relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, Defendants motion (ECF No. 182.) is DENIED. ( As further set forth in this Order.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 12/6/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER granting 177 Motion for Reconsideration re 177 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 176 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Order on Motion for Protective Order, and Clarif ication of Order ECF No. 176. and Clarification of Order ECF No. 176. filed by Cadavid, Alyssa Trigueno. Defendants shall be permitted up to 30 minutes to cross examine the witness. To the extent Plaintiff uses a full hour, Defendants will be permitted up to an additional half hour. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 10/25/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
176
ORDER denying 170 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 174 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 175 Motion for Protective Order. The Court denies these motions. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give District C ourts broad discretion to manage discovery. In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 2003). The Court has discretion to limit the frequency and extent of use of discovery methods, including depositions, if the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, if the party seeking discovery already has had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought, or if the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), as fur ther set forth in this Order. As noted in the previous Order, the parties were directed to submit a status report to this Court advising it of the mutually agreed-upon deposition date. The Court understands that the parties are still attempting t o land on a date on or before October 28, 2021 and trusts they will work cooperatively and promptly to finalize a date and time. Because the deposition is limited to one hour, the parties and witness should be able to find a time by then. Accordin gly, the Court excuses the parties from submitting a letter regarding the time and date of the deposition; however, the parties should submit a letter by October 31, 2021 confirming that the deposition has been completed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 170, 174, and 175. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 10/20/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER granting 171 Motion for Protective Order Requesting Court to Adjourn Plaintiff's Deposition of Witness Scheduled for October 16, 2021. Although in some circumstances less than two-weeks' notice is reasonable, one days& #039; notice is clearly not reasonable given the circumstances of this case. See, e.g., Jones v. United States, 720 F. Supp. 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (eight days of notice was reasonable); Hannah v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 WL 690179 (D.CT. Feb. 21, 2017) (five days' notice of trial deposition unreasonable; precluding use of deposition at trial). Plaintiff was given until October 28, 2021 to take the deposition and is aware of the location of his child's mother. There is absolutel y no reason he could not have provided two weeks' notice of the deposition to defense counsel. Plaintiff shall work with defense counsel to schedule a mutually convenient time for the deposition by October 28, 2021. By October 22, 2021, the parties shall file a letter informing the Court of the agreed-upon date. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 171. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 10/18/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER: The Court received a voicemail from both of the parties on Friday, August 13, 2021, during deposition testimony. To the extent Defendant objects to questions and seeks a protective order, Defendant may refuse to answer such questions pend ing the outcome of a ruling on a motion for a protective order. The parties shall complete as much of the deposition as possible and ask the court reporter to mark appropriate questions/objections for rulings. By September 10, 2021, Defendant may file a motion for a protective order with the court and must provide a copy of the deposition transcript together with those questions/objections for which a ruling is sought highlighted. Plaintiff shall have one week to file an opposition. No reply brief. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 9/10/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 8/13/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER granting 142 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court hereby grants a one-week extension to provide the status report concerning Plaintiff's 911 audio until June 16, 2021. Regarding the motion to compel records, the Court will discuss this with the parties at the case management conference scheduled for Thursday, July, 1, 2021 at 3:15 pm. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 6/8/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed in camera the unredacted notes from Defendant Police Officer Cadavid's memo book in response to Plaintiff's objections about redactions made to the notes. The Court finds that the redactions are appropriate, as the information redacted does not concern Plaintiff. However, upon review, it appears that the memo book notes do not cover any interactions with Plaintiff on 11/5/2016 and there is a note that reads "no narcotics in rear sea ts" which does not pertain to Plaintiff. Additionally, it appears there are no notes for on-scene Sargent Hornandez. Accordingly, by May 28, 2021, Defendants shall produce any additional relevant pages from the memo books of Officer Cadavid and Hornandez and file a letter with the Court stating that it has done so or, if applicable, stating that no additional relevant notes exist. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/21/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO COUNSEL: For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for the limited purposes described above. The Court advises Plaintiff that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Pl aintiff directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case without an attorney. 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/14/2021) (nb) Transmission to Office of Pro Se Litigation for processing.
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: A telephonic Case Management conference in this matter was held on May 12, 2021 at 3:00 pm. Following that discussion, the Court hereby orders the following documents/ items are exchanged be tween the parties: Defense Counsel will produce the officers memo book to my chambers en camera by May 21, 2021. Defense Counsel will produce Officers' Disciplinary Records to the Plaintiff. Defense Counsel will produce audio of plaintiff s phone call and/or destruction records along with office policies governing destruction of such records. Additionally, the court hereby orders the following schedule changes: The Order to Show Cause Hearing Scheduled for June 7, 2021 at 2:00 pm is cancelled. The Deadline for Discovery will be extended to June 30, 2021. Lastly, a final telephonic case management conference will be scheduled for Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 3:15 p.m. The parties' are directed to call into the court con ference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269 Code: 4858267. The parties' are directed to submit a report on June 2, 2021 confirming these documents were exchanged by both sides. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 6/30/2021., Telephone Conference set for 7/1/2021 at 03:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/12/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
127
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 4/15/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER terminating 122 Letter Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to execute the medical release Defendant provided to him on March 25, 2021 by Thursday, April 15, 2021. Further, the Court hereby schedules a telephonic Discov ery Conference in this case for Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff and Defense counsel should call the Court's conference line at the stated time using the following information: dial (866) 434-5269; access code 4858267. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 4/1/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER TO STRIKE: Plaintiff recently inappropriately filed documents produced to him during discovery on the electronic docket. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike ECF No. 117 in its entirety. Plaintiff is reminded that he is not to file discovery materials with the Court, regardless of whether that information may be publicly available. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/8/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
113
MEMO ENDORSEMENT with respect to 112 Motion for Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: Magistrate Judge Parker, to whom this case has been referred for General Pretrial (see Dkt. No. 106), will address this request. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 11/10/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER: Plaintiff's request at ECF No. 105 for permission to file a Reply to Defendants' Answer at is DENIED. Any arguments Plaintiff wishes to make in response to a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment shall be made according to a briefing schedule set by the Court, which will be discussed at the upcoming telephonic case management conference. Accordingly, Plaintiff's filing at ECF No. 102 is stricken, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the filing from the docket. As a reminder, the upcoming telephonic case management conference is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 12:30 p.m. The parties' are directed to call into the court conference line at the scheduled time. Please dial (866) 434-5269 Code: 4858267. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 9/29/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER re REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 75 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint SAC-the original complaint filed by Wentworth Rattray. Judge Parker's R&R is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion to amend is granted only to the extent that he may file by July 27, 2020 a Third Amended Complaint that contains a false arrest claim against Officer Cadavid. The Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff will contain only the following claims: (1) a Section 1983 unlawful search claim against Officer Cadavid and Officer Trigueno; (2) a Section 1983 false arrest claim against Officer Cadavid; and (3) a Section 1983 failure to intervene claim against Officer Trigueno based on the alleged unlawful search and false arrest. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 7/16/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER granting 92 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File for defendants to file their response to plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Application is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 5/15/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the City's request to strike Plaintiff's November 12, 2019 letter. (Doc. No. 83.) In light of Plaintiff's pro se status and because Plaintiff's submission of his Third Amended Complaint contain ed no memorandum of law, the City's request is denied. The Court will construe Plaintiff's November 12, 2019 submission (Doc. No. 82) as Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of his motion to amend the Complaint. The City may sub mit a sur-reply, if any, by December 2, 2019. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will not accept any further submissions from him in support of his motion to amend. The City is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/20/2019) ( Surreplies due by 12/2/2019.)(ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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.
