Ahmad v. White Plains City School District et al
| Mushtaq Ahmad |
| White Plains City School District, White Plains Teachers' Association, New York State United Teachers, Howard W. Smith, Corey W. Reynolds, Ellen Doherty, John Orcutt, Margaret H. Doty, Jeffrey Hirsch, Mark Wolstencraft, Cairenn Broderick, John Hughes, Carol Ann Tito, Vincent Dougherty, Akiva Friedman, S. R, C. S., O. A., John Does 1-3 and Jane Does 1-3 |
| 1:2018cv03416 |
| April 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
99
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is also directed to terminate the pending letter motion (Dkt. No. 96) and close this case. SO ORDERED. White Plains City School District (WPCSD), Mark Wolstencroft (Teacher/Mentor), in his official and individual capacity), Ellen Doherty (Principal of White Plains High School), in her Official and Individual Capacity and Howard W. Smith (Superintendent of WPCSD), in his Official and Individual Capacity terminated. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 2/2/2021) (rjm) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
89
OPINION & ORDER re: 69 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. filed by White Plains City School District, Howard W. Smith, Ellen Doherty., For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is grant ed in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims alleging retaliation with respect to his complaints of discrimination and harassment at WPCSD, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and violations of the CBA are dismissed with prejudice, a s are Plaintiff's claims under Title VII as to Smith and Doherty. However, Plaintiff's Title VII claims against WPCSD alleging retaliation with respect to his lawsuit against ERCSD and his procedural due process claim based on his t ermination without a prior hearing survive the instant Motion. The Court will hold a Status Conference as to these remaining claims on October 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (Dkt . No. 69), and to mail a copy of this Opinion & Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/24/2020) ( Status Conference set for 10/8/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request to stay the proceeding or, in the alternative, for assignment of pro bono counsel, is denied without prejudice. Should circumstances materially change, Plaintiff may renew this request at a later date. Because this Order discusses sensitive medical information of Plaintiff, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file this Order under seal, to be viewable only by the Court and the Parties, and to simultaneously publicly file a redacted version of this Order. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 7/14/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
58
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Union Defendants' Motion is granted, and the White Plains Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part. All of Plaintiff's claims except for his procedural due process cl aim based on his termination without a prior hearing are dismissed. However, because this is the first adjudication of Plaintiff's claims on the merits, the dismissal is without prejudice. See Terry v. Inc. Vil/. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 63 3 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that "district judges should, as a general matter, liberally permit pro se litigants to amend their pleadings" unless "amendment would be futile"). Should Plaintiff choose to file a third amended com plaint, he must do so within 30 days of this Opinion, addressing the deficiencies identified herein. The third amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the Second Amended Complaint currently before the Court. It therefore must contain all o f the claims and factual allegations Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. The Court will not consider factual allegations raised in supplemental declarations, affidavits, or letters. If Plaintiff fails to abide by the 30-day deadline, this actio n will proceed solely on Plaintiff's procedural due process claim. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (see Dkt. Nos. 42, 43), and mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 7/15/2019) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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.
