Scorsonelli v. Madison Dentistry, P.C. et al
| Anna Marie Scorsonelli |
| Madison Dentistry, P.C. and Frank DiCicco |
| 1:2018cv04269 |
| May 14, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12111 |
| 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
56
ORDER OF DISMISSAL... It is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within ninety days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be "so ordered" by the Court . Per Paragraph 4(B) of the Court's Individual 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 pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/15/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Madison Dentistry, P.C., Frank DiCicco. In short, drawing all inferences in Scorsonelli's favor, see, e.g., Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Fr eight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004), the Court is compelled to conclude that Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be denied. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the parties shall submit their proposed joint pretria l order and associated materials (in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases) within thirty days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. See ECF No. 18, paragraph 14-15. They should b e prepared to begin trial as early as two weeks thereafter. See id. paragraph 16. That said, the Court is firmly of the view that the parties should try to settle this matter without the need for an expensive and risky trial. To that end, the Cou rt directs the parties to confer immediately about the prospect of settlement and conducting a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein (or before a mediator appointed by the Court or retained privately). If the parties agree that a settlement conference would be appropriate, they should promptly advise the Court and seek an appropriate extension of the pretrial deadlines. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 31. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/14/2019) (rro)
|
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.
