Altman v. New Rochelle Public School District et al
| Hui Altman |
| New Rochelle Public School District, Kalohifer, Organisciak and Mendez |
| 7:2013cv03253 |
| May 14, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Edgardo Ramos |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| None |
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
124
OPINION & ORDER re: 105 MOTION in Limine Evidence of Certain Alleged Post-Termination Statements filed by Hui Altman, 103 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's Involvement in Other Litigation filed b y Hui Altman, 101 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Performance Evaluations by Other Schools filed by Hui Altman, 107 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Proposed Defense Exhibit MMM filed by Hui Altman, 110 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Hui Altman. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate the trial proceedings is DENIED. The Court respectfully directs t he Clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 101, 103, 105, 107, and 110. The parties are directed to appear at the previously scheduled final pretrial conference on January 20, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/20/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 1/6/2017) (mml)
|
|
Filing
97
OPINION AND ORDER re: 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by New Rochelle Public School District. For the foregoing reasons, the District's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to ter minate the motion at ECF No. 80. The parties are directed to appear for an in-person pretrial conference at 12:30 p.m. on July 8, 2016. SO ORDERED. (Pretrial Conference set for 7/8/2016 at 12:30 PM before Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.) (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 6/2/2016) (mml)
|
|
Filing
44
OPINION AND ORDER re: 28 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Mendez, Organisciak, New Rochelle Public School District, Kalohifer. For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, to the extent of dismissing Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the ADEA and Plaintiff's claim under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and otherwise DENIED. The District's motion to dismiss for insufficient process is DENIED without prejudice to renewal if Plaintiff fails to effect service on the District as instructed below. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this motion (Doc. 28). The Clerk of Court is also instructed to send Plaintiff one USM-285 form to allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant New Rochelle Public School District through the U.S. Marshals Service. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must complete the USM-285 form for the District and return the f orm to the Court. If Plaintiff does not wish to use the Marshals Service to effect service, she must notify the Court in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order and request that a summons be issued directly to her. If within thir ty (30) days, Plaintiff has not returned the USM-285 form or requested a summons, under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss the action as against the District for failure to prosecute. Upon receipt of the comp leted USM-285 form, the Clerk of Court shall issue a summons and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service upon each Defendant. Regardless of which method of service Plaintiff chooses , she must effect service within 120 days of the date the summons is issued. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to inquire of the Marshals Service as to whether service has been made and, if necessary, to request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 655 (2012). If within 120 days of issuance of the summons, Plaintiff has not made service or requested an extension of time in which to do so, under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss this action as against the District for failure to prosecute. Defendants shall file an answer or answers to the Complaint within thirty (30) days from the day the District is served with the Complaint.( USM-285 Form due by 7/21/2014., Request for Issuance of Summons due by 7/21/2014.), (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 6/19/2014) (rj)
|
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.
