Dodd v. City University of New York et al
| Lynda G. Dodd |
| City University of New York, Vincent Boudreau, Bruce Cronin, Paul Occhiogrosso, Mary Erina Driscoll, Kevin Foster, John Krinsky, Rajan Menon and Vivien Tartter |
| 1:2017cv09932 |
| December 20, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Employment |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 701 |
| 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
214
ORDER: The Court having been advised by the parties that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, Dkt. 212, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice t o the right to reopen the action within 30 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. The trial scheduled in this case for June 30, 2021, and the final pretrial conference scheduled for this afternoon at 2:30 p.m., are he reby adjourned sine die. The Court adjourns those dates having discussed with the parties that, in light of the current public-health situation, the central scheduling for jury trials that remains necessary in this District, and the parties' e stimation that this trial will take between two and three weeks, it is possible that the Court will not be able to schedule another three-week jury trial in this case in the foreseeable future. The Court thus issues this Order on the understanding expressed in its prior order, Dkt. 213, and confirmed with all counsel during a teleconference this morning-that, should settlement fall through and any party file an application to reopen this case, the Court cannot guarantee that the parties wil l be able to try this case to a jury. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within 30 days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to r etain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same 30-day period to be "so ordered" by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court's Indivi dual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any proposed order approving the settlement agreemen t that seeks the Court's continued jurisdiction should either (1) expressly state that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement or (2) incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. The Court again congratulates the parties on reaching this outcome, thanks counsel for their collegial, professional, vigorous, and effective advocacy, and wishes all well. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/21/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
213
ORDER: The Court has received a letter from counsel reporting that the parties have reached a settlement in principle. Dkt. 212. The Court congratulates the parties on this outcome and thanks counsel again for their collegiality, professionalism, and vigorous and effective advocacy in preparing the many pretrial submissions that have been filed in recent weeks. (As further set forth herein.) A telephonic conference for this purpose will be held at 9 a.m. on Monday, June 21, 2021. This time cannot be rescheduled. Because the conference will concern settlement, it is properly held off the record. The Court's law clerk will separately send counsel password-protected information for accessing the call. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/19/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case caption should be amended to read as follows; as further set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/3/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
199
OPINION & ORDER re: 170 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Jury Consideration of Back Pay and Front Pay filed by Bruce Cronin, John Krinsky, Vincent Boudreau, City University of New York. For the reasons above, defendants motion to preclude jury consideration of back pay at trial is denied in full. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 170. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/1/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER: A final pretrial conference is scheduled in this case for June 1, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. In light of improving public-health conditions and the importance of the conference to this matter, that conference will now be held in-person, in Courtr oom 1305 at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, on the same date and at the same time. In advance of that conference, all participants are directed promptly to review the District's COVID-19 prot ocols for courthouse entry, which are available online at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus, to ensure that they will be able to gain entry to the courthouse next week. SO ORDERED. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/1/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1305, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 5/25/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER granting 161 Letter Motion to Seal. Granted. In accord with the Court's Individual Rule 4(B)(2), however, the parties are directed also to file an unredacted copy of the JSF, under seal, on the docket of the case. Going forward, the par ties shall file proposed sealed submissions on the docket and need not email those submissions to chambers, as is currently outlined in Individual Rule 6(B). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 161. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 4/12/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: The Southern District of New York has reconfigured courtrooms and other spaces in its courthouses to allow civil jury trials to proceed as safely as possible during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the centralized calendaring system currently i n place, the Clerk's Office schedules up to three jury trials to begin on each day of jury selection: a primary case and up to two back-up cases that may proceed in its place if the primary case does not go forward. On February 5, 2021, the p arties provided the Court with their availability for trial in the second quarter of 2021. In light of that availability, the Court requested June 28, 2021 for trial, see Dkt. 147, and the Clerk's Office has notified the Court that this case has been designated the primary case on June 30, 2021. The case must be trial-ready for that date. Absent a settlement or other extraordinary circumstances, trial will go forward on that date. The Court previously entered a schedule for the submiss ion of joint pretrial materials, which are due April 9, 2021, and oppositions to motions in limine, which are due May 7, 2021. See Dkt. 149. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for June 2, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. See id. Those deadlines remain in place. SO ORDERED. (Ready for Trial by 6/30/2021.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/1/2021) (jca)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER: The Court has received correspondence from all parties as to their availability for a jury trial in the second quarter of 2021, and thanks the parties and their counsel for their cooperation. The Court, using the procedures in this Distric t governing the scheduling of jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, will seek to schedule a jury trial in June 2021, beginning on June 28, 2021. The Court expects to be notified of the specific trial date assigned to this case within several w eeks. It is possible, given the number of criminal cases waiting to be tried, that the case will be assigned a trial date as a backup behind one or more trials with higher priority. Counsel are responsible for assuring that they, and all trial witn esses, (1) are available to attend the trial in person on the dates set, and (2) will be in full compliance with all public-health requirements governing travel to New York City and entry into this courthouse, including any requirements of advance quarantines. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/9/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
138
ORDER: The Court today issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Lynda Dodd's claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. The decision leaves in place Dodd's claim s against the City University of New York, Vincent Boudreau, Bruce Cronin, and John Krinsky. This case will now proceed to trial on the surviving claims. The Court's intention is to hold this trial during the first quarter of 2021. Accordingly, the Court sets a deadline of October 26, 2020, for the parties to submit a proposed joint pretrial order and all other pretrial filings required by the Court's Individual Rule 5.AB, including any motions in limine. Any filings in opposition to m otions in limine will be due November 2, 2020, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rule 5.D. Unless otherwise ordered, courtesy copies shall be submitted via email to EngelmayerNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov, not in hard copy. The Court furt her sets a final pretrial conference for Monday, November 9, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of the conference will be for the Court to review the joint pretrial order with counsel, to discuss with counsel and set a trial date, and, potentially, to r esolve motions in limine. Counsel should be prepared to address these matters at the conference. In light of the current public health crisis, the conference will be held telephonically. The parties should call into the Court's dedicated confere nce line at (888) 363-4749, and enter Access Code 468-4906, followed by the pound (#) key. Counsel are directed to review the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, found at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/honpaul- enge lmayer, for the Court's procedures for telephonic conferences and for instructions for communicating with chambers. (Pretrial Order due by 10/26/2020., Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/9/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/25/2020) (nb)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER: THEREFORE, plaintiff's request to withdraw Exhibit 349 of the Declaration of Anne L. Clark, ECF No. 120 from ECF is GRANTED, and I further GRANT plaintiff leave to re-file Exhibit 349 of the Declaration of Anne L. Clark, ECF No. 120, under seal. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/9/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER: THEREFORE, plaintiff's request to file under seal Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Anne L. Clark is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/6/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
110
ORDER: The Court has reviewed and approves of plaintiffs proposed redactions to Exhibits 29, 101, 290, 303-05, 309, 313-15, 327, 336, 355, 368,and 373. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/26/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER: On November 22, 2019, plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting permission to file, in connection with her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment: (i) certain exhibits entirely under seal, (ii) certain exhibits and depos ition transcripts both under seal and with redactions, and (iii) her memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 counterstatement of facts both under seal and with redactions. As to the first category of documents-the documents to be filed entirely under seal-th e Court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff's request, as further set forth in this order. The Court accordingly directs plaintiff to make a good-faith effort to propose, via email, narrowly tailored redactions to the exhibits she sought to fil e entirely under seal by November 26, 2019. Once the Court reviews and approves of those proposed redactions, defendants may file the unredacted versions under seal and the redacted versions on ECF. As to the second and third categories of documents- the documents proposed to be filed with redactions-the Court has reviewed and approves of the proposed redactions. Plaintiff's request with regard to those documents is therefore granted. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/25/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION & ORDER re: 21 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Paul Occhiogrosso, Rajan Menon, John Krinsky, Vivien Tartter, Bruce Cronin, Mary Erina Driscoll, Kevin Foster, City University of New York, Vincent Boud reau. For the reasons above, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss Dodd's Amended Complaint; grants Dodd's cross-motion for leave to further amend her complaint to add certain new instances of retaliation and to assert a claim against Boudreau under the ADA; and otherwise denies Dodd's cross-motion for leave to further amend. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/7/2018) (anc)
|
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.
