Gem Financial Service, Inc. et al v. City of New York et al (original) (raw)
Gem Financial Service, Inc. et al v. City of New York et al
Plaintiff: | Gem Financial Service, Inc. and Mitchell Kaminsky |
---|---|
Defendant: | City of New York, New York City Police Department and Police Officers John Doe #1-10 |
Case Number: | 1:2013cv01686 |
Filed: | March 28, 2013 |
Court: | US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Office: | Brooklyn Office |
Presiding Judge: | I. Leo Glasser |
Presiding Judge: | Ramon E. Reyes |
Nature of Suit: | Civil Rights: Other |
Cause of Action: | 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Jury Demanded By: | Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed | Document Text |
---|---|
September 8, 2023 | Filing 214 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's 186 motion for prejudgment interest is granted, and plaintiff's 206 motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 9/8/2023. (XW) |
July 28, 2023 | Filing 211 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendant's 187 motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial are denied. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 7/28/2023. (XW) |
February 10, 2022 | Filing 155 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, plaintiff's motion 139 to admit the Dambrot Affidavit is denied, and ruling is reserved on plaintiff's motion to preclude NYPD officer testimony. Defendant's motion 142 to preclude the NYPD Contact Log is granted, and defendant's motion to preclude certain evidence under the law-of-the-case doctrine is granted in part. Defendant's motions to preclude expert testimony on lost profits damages, to preclude undisclosed witnesses, and to preclude designation of deposition testimony are denied. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/10/2022. (Bell, Jason) |
March 29, 2018 | Filing 93 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part both motions for summary judgment. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/29/2018. (Chu, Chan Hee) |
March 31, 2015 | Filing 54 ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration re 37 First MOTION for Reconsideration and to dismiss filed by City of New York. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court denies Defendants motion for reconsideration and denies Defendants motion to dismiss. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/31/2015. (Bronn, Natasha) |
March 17, 2014 | Filing 21 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. As set forth in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court grants Defe ndants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs class of one Equal Protection claim, federal malicious prosecution claim, NYCRL claim, and tortious interference claim. The Court denies Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, state law malicious prosecution claim, municipal liability claim, and request for equitable relief. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/17/2014. (Ramos, Christopher) |
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 Eastern 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.