Perdomo-Rodriguez v. Schindler Elevator Corporation et al
| MARICELA PERDOMO-RODRIGUEZ |
| Macy's Inc. and Schindler Elevator Corporation |
| 1:2020cv08507 |
| October 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Vernon S Broderick |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CASE REMANDED OUT from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the State Court - Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. Sent certified copy of docket entries and remand order. Mailed via UPS Tracking Number 1Z E22 E53 21 1000 051 9 on 10/28/2020. (jwh) |
Filing 9
CONSENT ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, BRONX COUNTY: The parties to this action, plaintiff, Maricela Perdomo-Rodgriguez, and defendants, Macy's Inc. and Schindler Elevator Corporation, hereby stipulate and agree that this action be, and it hereby is, remanded from the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of The Bronx, under Index No. 30732/2020E. The parties further stipulate and agree that this Consent Order for Remand is based upon plaintiff's execution of a Stipulation on Case Valuation in which plaintiff agrees that any judgment entered in this case will not exceed $75,000.00, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. We hereby consent to the form and substance of this Order. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 10/27/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing 8
STIPULATION ON CASE VALUATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersignedattorneys that any judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Maricela Perdomo-Rodriguez, will not exceed $75,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs and interest. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the undersigned attorneys that, in reliance on the foregoing, defendants, Macy's Inc. and Schindler Elevator Corporation, have agreed to remand this matter from Federal Court. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 10/27/2020) (rro)
|
| Filing 7 LETTER addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Catherine G. Bryan, Esq. dated October 23, 2020 re: Consent Order Remanding Case to Supreme Court, Bronx County. Document filed by Macy's Inc., Schindler Elevator Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Consent Order Remanding Case to Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, #2 Stipulation on Case Valuation).(Bryan, Catherine) |
| Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (jgo) |
| Case Designated ECF. (jgo) |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(jgo) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Catherine G. Bryan. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: MARICELA PERDOMO-RODRIGUEZ. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: party name was entered in all caps;. (jgo) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Catherine G. Bryan. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: County code Bronx;. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the County code has been modified to XX Out of State;. (jgo) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Perri J. Koll on behalf of Macy's Inc., Schindler Elevator Corporation..(Koll, Perri) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Macy's Inc., Schindler Elevator Corporation..(Bryan, Catherine) |
| Filing 4 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Macy's Inc. for Macy's Inc.. Document filed by Macy's Inc...(Bryan, Catherine) |
| Filing 3 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Schindler Enterprises, Inc., Corporate Parent Schindler Holding, Ltd. for Schindler Elevator Corporation. Document filed by Schindler Elevator Corporation..(Bryan, Catherine) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Bryan, Catherine) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. Case Number: 30732/2020E. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-22104603).Document filed by Schindler Elevator Corporation, Macy's Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. A - Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit Ex. B - Notice of Service for Schindler Elevator Corporation, #3 Exhibit Ex. C - Notice of Service for Macy's Inc., #4 Exhibit Ex. D - Defendants' Answer to Compaint, #5 Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, #6 Notice to Adverse Party of Filing Notice of Removal).(Bryan, Catherine) |
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 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.
