Malcolm v. Association of Supervisors and Administrators of Rochester, (ASAR) et al
| Bernice C Malcolm |
| Association of Supervisors and Administrators of Rochester, (ASAR), Timothy Cliby, John Rowe, Rochester City School District and Barbara Deane-Williams |
| 6:2017cv06878 |
| December 20, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Monroe |
| David G. Larimer |
| 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
76
DECISION AND ORDER The Court declines to reimpose leave-to-file sanctions. The Court further concludes that plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA retaliation claims against the District, arising prior to her recall employment with the District in or ar ound November 2017, are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Those claims are dismissed, with prejudice.What remains of plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (17-CV-6878, Dkt. # 43 ) are her Title VII and ADEA retaliation claims against the District which arose out of, or after, her recall employment between November 2017 and April 2018. The District is hereby directed to file and serve its Answer to those specific claims, or else to move to dismiss them in lieu of an Answer, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decision and Order.All claims against the ASAR defendants having been dismissed, and the Second Circuit having affirmed that dismissal, the Clerk is directed to close the case of Malcolm v. ASAR et al., 17-CV-6878, which had originally been consolidated with Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City School District et al., 18-CV-6450, for purposes of the underlying motions and appeals.The parties are instructed that future submissions i n this matter need only be filed in the remaining case, Curry Malcolm v. Rochester City School District et al., 18-CV-6450.Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/28/2023. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Bernice Curry-Malcolm.Clerk to Follow up
|
|
Filing
59
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible cause of action. The defendants' motions to dismiss (17-CV-6878, Dkt. 44 , 46 ) are hereby granted, and the Second Amended Complaint (17-CV-6878, Dkt. 43 ) is dismissed in its entirety.Plaintiff's causes of action arising out of her initial employment with the District, which ended in or about July 2017, are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice.Plaintiff's claims that are allege d to have arisen after her rehire by the District, in and after November 2017, are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 10/19/2021. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Bernice Curry-Malcolm on 10/19/2021 to her address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- Modified on 10/19/2021 (KAH).
|
|
Filing
41
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's motion seeking recusal (17-CV-6878, Dkt. 40 ) is denied.Further, the Court finds that the leave to file sanctions imposed in Malcolm I should be reinstated, in the manner and to the extent set forth a bove.The Amended Complaint (17-CV-6878, Dkt. 39 ; 18-CV-6450, Dkt. #22) is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decision and Order and without the need to seek further leave of Court, a Second Amended Complaint in this consolidated action, which sets forth the relevant facts and claims in a clear and concise manner, in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8.Plaintiff is once again warned that she may not a ttempt to reassert and should not include in her Second Amended Complaint any of the causes of action for which dismissal with prejudice was affirmed by the Second Circuit, nor may she raise any new claims that have been found untimely, or for whic h administrative remedies have not been exhausted. Such actions would be in violation of this Court's December 30, 2020 Decision and Order (17-CV-6878, Dkt. 34 ; 18-CV-6450, Dkt. #18). Plaintiff is warned that if the Second Amended Complaint fa ils to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8, and/or with the prior orders of this Court, it shall be subject to dismissal, with prejudice. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 4/6/2021. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to Bernice Malcolm on 4/6/2021 to her address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
|
Filing
28
DECISION AND ORDER I find that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and failed to state a claim against any defendant with respect to her LMRA, Title VII, ADEA and NYSDHR claims. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismis s the complaint 4 , 9 are granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff, Bernice Malcolm, is enjoined from the filing and prosecution of additional lawsuits arising out of her employment with the RCSD, in the manner and to th e extent described herein. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 7/11/2019. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Bernice C. Malcolm on 7/11/2019 to her address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
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 Western 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.
