Goodman v. Sharp et al
| Jason Goodman |
| Adam Sharp, Terrance O'Reilly, Margaret Esquenet, National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences |
| 1:2021cv10627 |
| December 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Valerie E Caproni |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
OBJECTION TO ORDER ECF NO.17 re: #17 Order on Motion for Recusal. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Filing 17
MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying #16 Motion for Recusal. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff request that the Court recuse herself based on the Court's statements and rulings in a related case in which Plaintiff's company is the Defendant. See the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciens, Inc., et al v. Multimedia System Design, Inc., 20-cv-7269. Plaintiff's request is DENIED. A judge is required to recuse herself from "any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 455(a) (emphasis added). Recusal is warranted if "an objective, disenterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts...entertain significant doubt that justice would be fone absent recusal." United States v. Yousef, 327 F. 3d 56, 169 (2d Cir. 2003). (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The showing of personal bias to warrant recusal must ordinarily be based on "extrajudicial conduct...not conduct which arises in a judicial context" Lewis v. Tuscan Dairy Farms, Inc., 25 F. 3d 1138, 1141 (2d Cir. 1994)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted); see also Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F. 3d 188, 199 (2d Cir. 2022)( affirming denial of recusal motion filed in case by plaintiff where judge had ruled against him on all his motions and where plaintiff had "speculated that the judge may have been acquainted with [him]") Plaintiff states no facts suggesting that the undersigned "displayed a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible" Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Any reasonable and objective observer would perceive Plaintiff's dissatisfaction only with the Court's rulings and judicial statements. As there is no need for the undersigned to recuse herself for this action, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion seeking her recusal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 1/10/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing 16
NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for Recusal of Judge Valerie Caproni. Document filed by Jason Goodman.(sc)
|
|
Filing 15
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from #14 Order. Document filed by Non-Party D. George Sweigert. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER re: #4 Declaration, #3 Declaration. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Sweigert's motion to intervene is DENIED. To intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), a party must have a "direct, substantial, and legally protectable" interest in the subject matter of the action. United States v. City of New York, 198 F.3d 360, 365 (2d Cir. 1999). Mr. Sweigert has no protectable legal interest in this case, which concerns Defendant's alleged abuse of process with respect to another case in which Mr. Sweigert is not a party, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. et al v. Multimedia System Design, Inc., No. 20-CV-7269 (VEC). See New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 486-87 (2d Cir. 1992) (denying non-party's motion to intervene to strike allegedly false portions of plaintiff's complaint because the non-party failed to identify a "protectable interest in the action"). To intervene permissively under Rule 24(b), a party must have "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Intervention, however, cannot be used to "inject collateral issues into an existing action," and the Court has broad discretion to deny an applicant's motion for permissive intervention. Kheel, 972 F.2d at 486-87. As noted supra, Mr. Sweigert has not identified any legally protectable interest in this case, and the Court will not allow Mr. Sweigert to inject his unrelated ongoing disputes with Mr. Goodman into this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/21/2021) (tg) Modified on 1/3/2022 (tg).
|
|
Appeal Fee Due: for #15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Appeal fee due by 1/4/2022. (tp)
|
|
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp)
|
|
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
|
|
Filing 13
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. Filed by Jason Goodman.(sc)
|
|
Filing 12
RELATED CASE STATEMENT. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Margaret Esquenet, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc.. (sha)
|
|
Mailed a copy of Summons Issued to Jason Goodman at 252 7th Avenue, Apt. 6S, New York, NY 10001. (sha)
|
|
Filing 11
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Filing 10
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, Inc., re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Filing 9
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Margaret Esquenet, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Transmission to Records Management Clerk. Transmitted re: #11 Request for Issuance of Summons, to the Records Management Clerk for case processing. (sc)
|
|
Transmission to Pro Se Assistants. Transmitted re: #10 Request for Issuance of Summons, to the Pro Se Assistants for processing. (sc)
|
|
Transmission to Pro Se Assistants. Transmitted re: #9 Request for Issuance of Summons, to the Pro Se Assistants for processing. (sc)
|
|
Filing 8
NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: In light of the COVID-19 situation, the Court will conduct the Initial Pretrial Conference ("IPTC") in accordance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 25, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. by teleconference. At the scheduled time, counsel for all parties should call 888-363-4749, Access code 3121171#, Security code 0627. Counsel should submit their proposed case management plan and joint letter as outlined below. This Court encourages plaintiffs to serve defendants promptly. The parties are directed to submit a joint letter of no more than five pages by March 17, 2022, addressing the following in separate paragraphs: As set forth herein. Plaintiff's counsel, or the defendants counsel in removed cases, is responsible for distributing copies of this Notice to all parties. The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Telephonic Initial Conference set for 3/25/2022 at 02:30 PM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 12/17/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Mailed a copy of #8 Order for Initial Pretrial Conference to Jason Goodman at 252 7th Avenue, Apt. 6S, New York, NY 10001. (kh)
|
|
Filing 7
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Adam Sharp, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Filing 6
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Terrance O'Reilly, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sc)
|
|
Transmission to Pro Se Assistants. Transmitted re: #7 Request for Issuance of Summons, to the Pro Se Assistants for processing. (sc)
|
|
Transmission to Pro Se Assistants. Transmitted re: #6 Request for Issuance of Summons, to the Pro Se Assistants for processing. (sc)
|
|
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Terrance O'Reilly, Adam Sharp. (sha)
|
|
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang 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. (aea)
|
|
NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Valerie E. Caproni. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(aea)
|
|
Mailed a copy of Summons Issued to Jason Goodman at 252 7th Avenue, Apt. 6S, New York, NY 10001. (sha)
|
|
Filing 5
(Revised)DECLARATION OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR D. GEORGE SWEIGERT. Document filed by D. George Sweigert, a non-party. (sc) Modified on 12/16/2021 (sc).
|
|
Filing 4
DECLARATION OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR D. GEORGE SWEIGERT. Document filed by D. George Sweigert, a non-party. (sc)
|
|
Filing 3
DECLARATION OF NON-PARTY D. GEORGE SWEIGERT. (sc)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE OF RELATED LITIGATION. Document filed by D. George Sweigert, a non-party. (sc)
|
|
Pro Se Payment of Fee Processed: Check $402.00 processed by the Finance Department on 12/14/2021, Receipt Number 465401290598. (jcf)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Margaret Esquenet, National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Terrance O'Reilly, Adam Sharp. Document filed by Jason Goodman. (sac)
|
|
Case Designated ECF. (sac)
|
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.
