Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Workneh v. Super Shuttle International Inc. (1:15-cv-03521-ER-RWL)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share on Social Media

Workneh v. Super Shuttle International Inc. (1:15-cv-03521-ER-RWL)

Follow on Feedly for case updates: follow us on feedly

RSS: RSS Feed Icon

  • ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter to the undersigned dated March 10, 2020 (Dkt. 248). Plaintiff's request to hold the pending motion to dismiss in abeyance and to open an investigation into Defendant's productio n of a medical document is DENIED. The document issue (concerning a dental appointment) has been repeatedly addressed and resolved in prior orders. Despite having been provided a previous extension to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, Plaint iff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the extended deadline for which was March 10, 2020. Instead, on that day, Plaintiff filed two letters to Judge Ramos as well as the letter that is the subject of this order. Plaintiff did not request a second extension and evidently had the time to compose and file three separate letters to the Court rather than file opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Court will proceed with resolving the motion to dismiss. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/12/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro)

  • ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter dated February 14, 2020 (Dkt. 243) as well as Defendants' response. (Dkt. 244.) The relief requested by Plaintiff is DENIED. Plaintiff shall substantively respond to Defendants' mo tion to dismiss no later than March 10, 2020. (Responses due by 3/10/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/18/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed to: Elias Workneh, 9019 63rd Ave., Flushing, NY 11374. (mml)

  • ORDER. 1. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter dated December 12, 2019 (ECF 237). Plaintiff has not provided any legitimate justification for his repeated failure to comply with this Court's orders requiring him to sign the HIPAA f orm as provided by defense counsel. 2. To the extent not already accomplished, any documents received by Defendants in response to subpoenas shall be promptly produced to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/17/2019) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed to: Elias Workneh, 9019 63rd Ave., Flushing, NY 11374. (rjm)

  • ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' correspondence regarding Plaintiff's continuing violation of this Court's orders (Dkt. 234 and 235), by January 17, 2020, Defendants shall file proposed findings of fact (as they pertain to Plaintiff 's repeated failure to comply with orders) and conclusions of law supporting dismissal of the case. The conclusions of law should include discussion of why terminating sanctions are warranted over lesser sanctions such as an adverse inference r egarding the contents of the records sought. Defendants' filing shall be no longer than 10 pages (double-spaced). By February 18, 2020, Plaintiff may file a response of no more than 10 pages (double-spaced). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/6/2019) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed. (mml)

  • ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff shall execute the necessary HIPPA authorization and release form previously provided by Defendants with respect to his dental records and transmit it to Defendants' counsel via both email and regular mail by November 28, 2019. The HIPPA authorization and release shall cover all dental records in the period of June 1, 2013 to August 14, 2013. 2. Plaintiff shall cooperate with Defendants' counsel in scheduling the continuation of Pl aintiff's deposition. Such deposition shall occur within 30 days of Defendants' counsel receiving the necessary dental records following response to their subpoena for the same. Plaintiff's continued deposition shall be completed no later than January 31, 2020. 3. The deadline for the parties to file motions for summary judgment shall be March 1, 2020. 4. Failure to comply with the terms of this Order will result in sanctions,including a recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 3/1/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 11/18/2019) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed. (mml)

  • OPINION AND ORDER re: (Document 99) MOTION to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint: For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FMLA claim is GRANTED and Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend the claim. Acc ordingly, the matter will go forward only with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation and discrimination claims. The parties are directed to appear for a status conference on January 31, 2018 at 11:30am. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 99, and to strike Doc. 93 from the docket. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 12/27/2017) (jwh)

  • OPINION AND ORDER re: (Document 81) MOTION to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint filed by Super Shuttle International Inc., Veolia Transportation, Inc., New York City Airporter, (Document 61) MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veolia Transportation, Inc., New York City Airporter: For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Specifically: The motion to dismiss the NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims is DENIED; and The FMLA cl aim is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint, titled as such, asserting (1) the Title VII, NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims, (2) the NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims, and (3) the FMLA claim. If the Pl aintiff chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, he must do so by Friday, April 28, 2017.7 Otherwise, the matter will go forward only with respect to the retaliation and discrimination claims. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to ter minate the motions, Docs. 61 and 81, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, informa pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Amended Pleadings due by 4/28/2017.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/28/2017) (jwh) Modified on 3/28/2017 (jwh).

  • OPINION AND ORDER #106806 re: (Document 31) MOTION to Dismiss filed by Golden Touch Transportation, Super Shuttle International Inc., Veolia Transportation, Inc., New York City Airporter. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant& #039;s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically: The Title VII discrimination claims are dismissed with prejudice; The motion to dismiss the Title VII, NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims is DENIED; The NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims are dismissed without prejudice; and The FMLA claim is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint, titled as such, asserting (1) the Title VII, NYSHRL and NYC HRL retaliation claims, (2) the NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims, and (3) the FMLA claim. If the Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must do so by November 4, 2016. Otherwise, the matter will go forward only with resp ect to the retaliation claims. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 31 and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), tha t any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/30/2016) (mro) (Main Document 68 replaced on 10/7/2016) (jar).

Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Workneh v. Super Shuttle International Inc. (1:15-cv-03521-ER-RWL)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share this with your network