Jean Pierre v. Lieberman et al
| Gertrude Jean Pierre |
| Frederick Lieberman and Chase Investment Services Corp. |
| 7:2016cv05473 |
| July 8, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| George B. Daniels |
| Henry B. Pitman |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| 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
33
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Motion to Dismiss filed by Chase Investment Services Corp., Frederick Lieberman, 32 Report and Recommendations: Pro se plaintiff Gertrude Jean Pierre ("Plaintif f") filed this action on July 7, 2016, against Chase Investment Services, Corporation, now known as J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and its in-house counsel, Frederick Lieberman, (collectively "Defendants"), alleging, inter alia, employmen t discrimination, fraud, and violation of various criminal statutes. (See Complaint, ("Compl.") ECF No. 1.) Before this Court 1s Magistrate Judge Pitman's June 14, 2017 Report and Recommendation (the "Report," ECF No. 32), re commending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. (Report at 30.) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is ordered dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 16 and this case. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/3/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER re: 21 MOTION for Recusal, filed by Gertrude Jean Pierre, 20 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel, filed by Gertrude Jean Pierre. Because plaintiff's motion is based on events that occurred in the cours e of judicial proceedings, she has not asserted any valid ground for recusal and her motion to disqualify me is denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the case has sufficient merit to warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel. For the reason s stated in the Report and Recommendation of even date, it appears that there are fundamental defects in the complaint that cannot be remedied by amendment. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel is denied. Althoug h plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, this motion is moot. According to the Docket Sheet, the filing fees in this action have already been paid (See Docket Entry, dated July 8, 2016). Therefore, plaintiff's a pplication to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motions to disqualify me from this action (D.I. 21), for appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 20) are denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 6/14/2017) Copies Mailed and Transmitted By Chambers. (ras)
|
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.
