Munoz et al v. The City of New York et al
| Wanda Munoz |
| The City of New York, Kathy Henry, Unidentified Police Officers #1-20, Unidentified Emergency Medical Technician John Doe #1, Unidentified Emergency Medical Technician Jane Doe #1, James P. O'Neill and Daniel A. Nigro |
| 1:2017cv09583 |
| December 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| 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
187
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 186 Order in favor of The City of New York, Antonio Lomedico, Bruny Ortega-Garcia, Daniel A. Nigro, Ernesto Mejia, James Fico, James P. O'Neill, Jonya McDowell, Kathy Henry, Kenneth Woisin, Roan Lewis, Ryan Pierce against Wanda Munoz. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated May 10, 2022, the oral motions at the close of plaintiff's case in chief of defendants Henry and Pierce for judgment as a matter of law are granted for reasons stated on the record in open court. As all claims against all other defendants previously were dismissed; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 5/10/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
177
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 164 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 166 Motion in Limine. Both sides have filed motions in limine. They are disposed of as follows: Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt 168). The motion is granted with respect to items 1 through 3 and so much of item 4 as applies to defendants Henry and Pierce and former defendant Wroten. It is denied as to item 4 as it applies to the other named individuals without prejudice to reconsideration at trial. Finally, it is denied as to item 5. Assuming the evidence is sufficient to do so, the Court will submit to the jury that tries liability and compensatory damages special verdict questions as to whether the jury finds tha t the legal prerequisites for an award of punitive damages have been proved and, if so, whether it will award such damages. In the event the answers to both questions are in the affirmative, there will be a brief additional trial before the same jury to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. gg Defendants' Motion (Dkt 164) The motion is granted with respect to Points I through IV. Assuming arguendo that state law claims against the City on a respondeat superior cla im remain, there is no suggestion that there is any factual issue as to whether the remaining defendants were City employees or were acting within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, on that assumption, any mention of the City would serve only to imply that the defendants would be indemnified in the event of a plaintiff recovery. That would be unduly and unfairly prejudicial to them without serving any proper purpose. The motion is denied with respect to Point V without prejudice to a motion for dismissal of the punitive damages claim at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 5/2/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER re: 164 MOTION in Limine . filed by Ryan Pierce, Kathy Henry, Rainard Wroten, 166 MOTION in Limine . filed by Wanda Munoz, Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 164 MOTION in Limine ., 166 MOTION in Limine . Plaintiff and defendants yesterday filed motions in limine. The trial is set for May 5, 2022. Accordingly, answering papers on both motions shall be filed by 4 pm on May 2. Unless otherwise ordered, the motions will be decided on submission. SO ORDERED. :( Responses due by 5/2/2022) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/27/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
157
TRIAL ORDER: The Clerks Office is scheduled to provide the Court a jury panel for this case on Thursday, May 5, 2022. On that day, the parties must be present in Courtroom 12B by 9:30 AM ready to begin jury selection and proceed immediately to tr ial. You are instructed to take the following steps in connection with the trial. 1. At the commencement of trial, a complete set of documentary exhibits should be handed to the Judge for his use during the trial, and a list of all exhibits should be supplied to the Court Clerk and to the Judge, with all plaintiff exhibits marked with numerical identifications and all defendant exhibits marked with alphabetic identifications. Counsel should also have for the Judge copies of any deposition s which are to be read in a jury case. 2. Counsel are expected to have all necessary witnesses on hand to commence and continue trial. The court cannot commit itself to wait for witnesses. THE FAILURE TO HAVE A WITNESS READY TO PROCEED MAY RESU LT IN THE PARTY RESTING ITS CASE. 3. PRIOR TO THE TRIAL, ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE PRE-MARKED AND EXCHANGED BETWEEN COUNSEL. 4, Lastly, counsel will schedule an appointment with the courtroom deputy in order to familiarize themselves with the electronic courtroom evidence presentation system in courtroom 21B. ( Jury Selection set for 5/5/2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/3/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER: In view of the circumstances created by the pandemic, the Court is not able at this time to set a specific trial date. It will, however, request a trial date during the period April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. The parties will be advised promptly whether and when the case is scheduled for trial. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/2/2022) (js)
|
|
Filing
152
MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 151 Motion for Reconsideration re 151 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 150 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, . filed by Ryan Pierce, Kathy Henry, Rainard Wroten. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants' m otion proceeds from the mistaken premise that the Court's ruling was based on a view that Ms. Munoz's subjective intent was relevant to the probable cause or arguable probable cause issue. Rather, it was based on the existence of "a conflict in the testimony of witnesses as to whether Munoz was trying to help C.B. enter the ambulance or trying to pull him out." The resolution of that conflict depends not upon Ms Munoz's subjective state of mind, but on the objectiv e facts witnesses perceived. For example, was Ms Munoz exerting force on the body of C.B.? If so, was the force exerted such as would have assisted in propelling that 260 pound body up into the ambulance against the pull of gravity? Or was it exer ted so as to pull C.B. down onto the street from the ambulance step consistent with the pull of gravity? The short answer, for present purposes, is simply that the relevant facts remain to be determined. The motion for reconsideration is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/15/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
150
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 125 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint (Dkt. 125) is granted in all respects as to all defendants except that it is denied insofar as it relates to Munoz's federal and slate false-arrest claims in her individual capacity insofar as those claims are made against defendants Henry, Wroten and Pierce. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/1/2021) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments 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.
