Rothbein v. The City of New York et al
| Ilana Rothbein |
| The City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Carmen Farina, Ketler Louissaint, Jeanne Bradley, Julia McCrosson and Richard Carranza |
| 1:2018cv05106 |
| June 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Valerie E. Caproni |
| 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
35
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint filed by The City of New York, Richard Carranza, Jeanne Bradley, Ketler Louissaint, New York City Department of Education, Julia McCrosson, Carmen Farina. For the foregoing reasons, D efendants' motion to dismiss [Dkts. 24-26] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, The City of New York's motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED. All counts except Counts Four and Eight are dismissed without prejudice. Coun ts Four and Eight are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts One, Two, and Nine is GRANTED; those counts are dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss DOE and the individual Defendants in their offic ial capacities from Count Three is GRANTED. Count Three is dismissed as against DOE and the official-capacity Defendants without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Three as again the individuals in their personal capacities is DENIED . Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts Four and Eight is GRANTED. Counts Four and Eight are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six are GRANTED as to the discrimination claims and DENIED as to the retalia tion claims. As to the discrimination claims, Count Five and Six are dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Seven is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Ten is DENIED. Regarding the claims that have been di smissed without prejudice, Plaintiff may, if she wishes, amend her Complaint to correct the deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff must file her Amended Complaint, if any, no later than March 29, 2019. Any Amended Complaint must be accompanied by a redline version of the Amended Complaint showing differences between that document and the Complaint. If Plaintiff does not wish to file an Amended Complaint, she must submit a letter no later than March 29, 2019 advising the Court of that fact. In any case, the parties must appear for an initial pre-trial conference on March 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. No later than March 14, 2019, the parties must submit a joint pre-conference letter and a jointly proposed case-management plan as described in Para graphs 2 and 3 of the Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference [Dkt. 27]. If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, Defendants must move against or answer the Amended Complaint no later than April 26, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to any motion (or a letter notifying the Court of an intent not to oppose the motion) is due no later than May 17, 2019. Defendants' reply in support of their motion, if any, is due no later than May 24, 2019. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 3/29/2019., Motions due by 4/26/2019., Responses due by 5/17/2019, Replies due by 5/24/2019., Initial Conference set for 3/22/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 2/28/2019) (ama)
|
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.
