Williams v. Richardson

Williams v. Richardson

Plaintiff:	Derick Louis Williams
Defendant:	Kenneth W. Richardson
Case Number:	1:2017cv08940
Filed:	November 15, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Colleen McMahon
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 13, 2019	Filing 67 ORDER: It has been reported to the Court that this case has been settled. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to this Court's docket if the application to restore the action is made within thirty (30) days. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/13/2019) (rro)
December 2, 2019	Filing 63 OPINION & ORDER re: 52 MOTION For Legal Ruling on the Issue of Appellate Causation filed by Derick Louis Williams. Because I find that the Second Circuit would have deemed Plaintiff's right to appeal waived, and, in any even t, would have affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, I conclude that Defendant's failure to timely file the Underlying Appeal did not affect the outcome of the Underlying Proceeding. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plai ntiff's legal malpractice claim fails as a matter of law, and cannot proceed to trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Jury Trial set for December 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. is adjourned sine die due to the scheduling conflict discussed at the A ugust 30, 2019 status conference. (See Doc. 50, at 10). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at the Final Pretrial Conference set for December 4, 2019 at 12:30, the parties should be prepared to discuss Plaintiff's representation in the Proposed Pretri al Order that "[h]ad Defendant correctly advised Plaintiff that even after his appeal was dismissed, he still had the ability to file claims against the individual defendants in state court, he would have done so and recovered on his claims ag ainst them." (Doc. 59, at 6.) Specifically, the parties should be prepared to discuss why I have jurisdiction over such a claim, and if so, why the claim should be allowed to proceed to trial in light of its absence from the complaint in this action. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Document 52. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/2/2019) (rro)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 13, 2019

Filing 67 ORDER: It has been reported to the Court that this case has been settled. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to this Court's docket if the application to restore the action is made within thirty (30) days. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/13/2019) (rro)

December 2, 2019

Filing 63 OPINION & ORDER re: 52 MOTION For Legal Ruling on the Issue of Appellate Causation filed by Derick Louis Williams. Because I find that the Second Circuit would have deemed Plaintiff's right to appeal waived, and, in any even t, would have affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, I conclude that Defendant's failure to timely file the Underlying Appeal did not affect the outcome of the Underlying Proceeding. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plai ntiff's legal malpractice claim fails as a matter of law, and cannot proceed to trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Jury Trial set for December 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. is adjourned sine die due to the scheduling conflict discussed at the A ugust 30, 2019 status conference. (See Doc. 50, at 10). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at the Final Pretrial Conference set for December 4, 2019 at 12:30, the parties should be prepared to discuss Plaintiff's representation in the Proposed Pretri al Order that "[h]ad Defendant correctly advised Plaintiff that even after his appeal was dismissed, he still had the ability to file claims against the individual defendants in state court, he would have done so and recovered on his claims ag ainst them." (Doc. 59, at 6.) Specifically, the parties should be prepared to discuss why I have jurisdiction over such a claim, and if so, why the claim should be allowed to proceed to trial in light of its absence from the complaint in this action. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Document 52. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/2/2019) (rro)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Williams v. Richardson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Derick Louis Williams
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: Kenneth W. Richardson
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.

Why Is My Information Online?