Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-6426 - Johnson v. City of New York


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-6426 - Johnson v. City of New York
January 3, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, this Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendants are ordered to produce the unredacted telephone records for Defendant Curneen's personal cellular telephone and landline, Defendant Gala's two employee-issued cellular telephones, home landline, and office landline, Defendant Lamonda's cellular telephone, and the Battalion 58, Engine 257 and/or Ladder 170 landlines from the period of March 1, 2015 to May 31, 2015 to Plaintiff within 30 days of this Memorandum & Order. In the alternative, Defendants can provide releases for these records within five days of the date of this Memorandum & Order. These records may be designated as confidential by Defendants, and, if so, Plaintiff must treat them as confidential material. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 1/3/2018. (Pearce, Jessica)
March 31, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Lemonda's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 48 City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum and order, the defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, (1) the City Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims against Nigro, who is sued only in his official capacity, is GRANTED. As set forth above, because plaintiff has had the opportunity to plead a claim against Nigro in his individual capacity but has twice chosen not to do so, he is not granted leave to amend the complaint with respect to its claims against Nigro. (2) Lemonda's motion to dismiss plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against him is DENIED. (3) The City Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Title VII claims arising prior to April 9, 2015 is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff cannot recover under Title VII for discrete acts about which he became aware prior to that date. However, plaintiff may rely on events occurring prior to April 9, 2015 in (a) seeking to establish the causation element of his Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL retaliation claims and (b) seeking to establish his retaliatory hostile work environment claim, which the court concludes he has sufficiently pleaded. (4) The City Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1981 claim against them as non-state actors is GRANTED. (5) Lemonda's motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1981 claim against him is DENIED. (6) The City Defendants' and Lemonda's motions to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim are granted. (7) The City Defendants' and Lemonda's motions to dismiss plaintiff's negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are GRANTED. (8) The City Defendants' and Lemonda's motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim are GRANTED, without prejudice to plaintiff's ability to seek a contempt finding in the Class Action. Plaintiff may re-plead his section 1981 claim against the City Defendants (with the exception of Nigro) as state actors pursuant to section 1983, alleging violation of plaintiff's rights protected by section 1981. Plaintiff may not re-plead any other dismissed claim. The parties are directed to confer and jointly advise the court as to how they intend to proceed no later than April 9, 2018. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/31/2018. (Flores, Diego)