Thomas v. Five Star Electric et al

Plaintiff: Caze D. Thomas
Defendant: Five Star Electric, Dept of EEOC, Dept of Human Rights and Metropolitian Transportation Authority
Case Number: 1:2018cv03691
Filed: April 26, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Queens
Presiding Judge: Robert W. Lehrburger
Presiding Judge: Alison J. Nathan
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 19, 2022 Filing 126 CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 125 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations in favor of Dept of EEOC, Five Star Electric Corp., Metropolitian Transportation Authority, New York State Dept. of Human Rights against Caze D. Thomas. It is hereby ORDER ED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated September 16, 2022, the Court, except as noted above, has OVERRULED Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTED the R&R, and has GRANTED Defendants' motions to dis miss. The Court has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Five Star under the NYCHRL and has DISMISSED them without prejudice and has DISMISSED the remainder of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Court has also REJECTED R&R II in its entirety and has DENIED Plaintiff's request for a writ of prohibition as moot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 9/19/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
September 16, 2022 Filing 125 ORDER: Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 116 Report and Recommendation. For the foregoing reasons, the Court, except as noted above, OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS R&R I, and GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss. The C ourt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Five Star under the NYCHRL and DISMISSES them without prejudice and DISMISSES the remainder of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Court also REJECTS R&R II in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's request for a writ of prohibition as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 86, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff pro se, and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 9/16/2022) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
May 20, 2022 Filing 120 ORDER granting 118 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation is GRANTED. See ECF No. 118. Accordingly, by May 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file any objections. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 118. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/20/2022) (kv)
May 6, 2022 Filing 117 ORDER: The stay in this case entered on February 1, 2022, ECF No. 104, is LIFTED. Case Stay Lifted. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 5/6/2022) (ate)
March 22, 2022 Filing 115 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion at Dkt. 113 is in sum and substance the same as his motion filed at Dkt. 109 and is DENIED for substantially the same reasons. SO ORDERED. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff pro se and note service on the docket: Caze D. Thomas, 65-45 Parsons Blvd, #1M, Fresh Meadows, NY 11365. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/22/2022) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
November 13, 2019 Filing 82 ORDER granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to File. His request is hereby granted. Plaintiff shall file his written objections on or before November 22, 2019. Defendants shall file any response 14 days after being served with a copy of Plaintiffs objections. A copy of this Order will be mailed by Chambers to pro se Plaintiff and that mailing will be noted on the public docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/12/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (kv)
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: Thomas v. Five Star Electric et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Caze D. Thomas
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: Five Star Electric
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: Dept of EEOC
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: Dept of Human Rights
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: Metropolitian Transportation Authority
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?