Edwards v. McDonald
Plaintiff: Dollareatha Edwards
Defendant: Robert A. McDonald
Case Number: 2:2016cv08031
Filed: October 13, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 9, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 248 FINAL JUDGMENT: A jury having unanimously found defendant not liable on plaintiff's remaining claim, final judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant and plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/9/2022) (kv)
July 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 242 NOTICE OF FED. R. CIV. P. 25(D) SUBSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, per the operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, is automatically substituted as the defendant in this matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 7/28/2022) (kv)
July 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 188 ORDER: The undersigned will not be available to conduct the trial of this case because of the demands of her additional duties in the District of Puerto Rico. Accordingly, another district judge will be requested to try the case unless both parties c onsent to proceed for all purposes before the designated Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Ona T. Wang. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if both consent, so notify the Court by letter filed on the docket with a completed consent form (t he form may be completed in counterparts). If both parties do not consent, they shall promptly file a joint letter stating that both parties do not consent, without revealing the respective positions of the parties. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/30/2020) (ama)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 185 ORDER denying 174 Letter Motion for Discovery; denying 181 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court has reviewed Defendants letter motion to reopen discovery and the parties numerous letters responding to the motion at ECF 174, 175, 176, 177, an d 178. On July 23, 2020, a telephonic hearing was held on the motion. The parties have been repeatedly warned since 2018 that discovery and other deadlines would not be extended absent a showing of good cause. (See e.g., ECF 37, 68, and 83). Defendan t has not shown good cause to reopen discovery, notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to provide Dr. Marins telephone number without a court order. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED. As ordered during the conference, Plaintiff was dir ected to provide Defendant with Dr. Marins telephone number by close of business today. That order still stands.The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff's letter motion, filed twice on the CM/ECF docket, at ECF 181 and ECF 182. All requests in the letter(s) are DENIED. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close ECF 174 and ECF 181. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 7/23/2020) (rj)
June 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 173 ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file a copy of Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Special Hagan, Esq., in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Hagan Decl."), Docket Entry No. 140, on CD-ROM or other physical media, along with a copy of this Order, with the Clerk of Court by mail or drop box no later than July 17, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/01/2020) (ama)
May 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 172 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 154 MOTION to Strike Declarations of Dr. Norman Klein, Linda Dawson and Enid Bloom filed by Dollareatha Edwards, 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter O'Rourke. The Court denies Defendant' s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First and Third Causes of Action to the extent they bring claims related to Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's parking requests. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to all other claims. Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as moot. The final pretrial conference in this case is currently scheduled for August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to schedule a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Wang and to consult with each other and make submissions in advance of the final pretrial conference as provided in the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (Docket Entry No. 55). This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves Docket Entry Nos. 101 and 154. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/29/2020) (ama)
April 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 171 OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for this Court's recusal in Edwards and Collymore is DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 4/6/2020) (rro)
January 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 166 ORDER: granting 165 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Defendant's motion for a stay of pre-trial preparation requirements pending resolution of Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, as in the interests of judicial econom y. The consultation and submission requirements in connection with the final pre-trial conference are suspended pending further order of the Court. The final pre-trial conference is adjourned from February 21, 2020, to August 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. as a control date. Docket Entry No. 165 is resolved. SO ORDERED. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/06/2020) (ama)
December 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ORDER: Plaintiff's objection is overruled, as the November Order was not "clearly erroneous" or contrary to law within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Therefore, the November Order stands. This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 160. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/16/2019) (cf)
November 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 146 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 84 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. filed by Dollareatha Edwards. Most of the objections in both depositions were simply stated as "objection" or "objection to form." To the extent there was colloquy between counsel, the language used was civil, the objections were not made in bad faith, and the witness answered the questions, even in instances where the questions were not clear or counsel argued that the questions were not relevant. Plaintiff has not identified any objections or colloquy that, upon review, resulted in the witness failing to answer a question that they should have answered. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 11/12/2019) (js)
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: Edwards v. McDonald
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert A. McDonald
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dollareatha Edwards
Represented By: Special Hagan
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?