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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

12-910 - Argro et al v. Osborne et al

Download Files


Document in Context
12-910 - Argro et al v. Osborne et al
March 6, 2013
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER: granting in part and denying in part the # 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - it is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of all section 1983 claims against defendant Marsh in his official capacity and the conspiracy claim, the motion is otherwise denied. It is further ordered granting in part and denying in part the # 12 Motion to Dismiss, it is granted as to defendants Osborne, Cornell, Porter, Smith, Munyan, Smarsmach, LaVoie, OConnor, and the John and Jane Doe to the extent it seeks dismissal of the conspiracy claim and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arising from events on June 17, 2010 and December 23, 2010, otherwise the motion is denied in its entirety. Plaintiff's shall serve defendants in accordance with this Memorandum, Decision & Order within 30 days. Plaintiff's # 13 and 15 Motions to supplement and amend the complaint are GRANTED and plaintiff's shall file the proposed amended complaint within 5 days. Signed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/6/2013. (jmb)
March 30, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER granting Defendant Marsh's 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part the County Defendants' 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; Dismissing Defendants Marsh, LaVoie, O'Connor and all the "Doe" defendants; granting the Plaintiffs' 65 Motion regarding discovery materials as stated; and directing the Clerk to designate documents [57-7] and [57-8] as "restricted". This case is trial-ready and the Court will notify the parties of a trial date. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/30/2015. (amt)
March 25, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: regarding the # Motion for Attorney Fees to Determine the Legal Fees of Tatiana Neroni, Summary of Review - Under New York law, despite her suspension from the practice of law, Attorney Neroni is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for any legal services performed on plaintiffs' behalf prior to her suspension and withdrawal as plaintiffs' attorney and to assert a charging lien on any recovery in the action. Although she was provided a full opportunity to do so, Attorney Neroni has failed to come forward with evidence, including contemporaneous time records, that would provide the court with the information necessary to meaningfully assess the value of her services and affix a proper quantum meruit award. Nonetheless, I recommend that the court exercise its discretion and quantify Attorney Neroni's fees in quantum meruit, and hence the scope of her charging lien, at $15,000. Accordingly, it is hereby respectfully, therefore it is Recommended that Attorney Neroni's charging lien in this case be quantified at $15,000 based upon the services performed on behalf of plaintiffs in this action prior to the date of her suspension. Objections to R&R due by 4/11/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 3/25/2016. (jmb)
April 13, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER: It is Ordered that the # 105 Report and Recommendation is REJECTED and it is further ordered that the # 95 Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. It is Ordered that no charging lien exists in favor of Tatiana Neroni, and she has waived any right to recover attorney's fees as a portion of any award recovered by plaintiffs in a trial or settlement of this action. This civil rights action is Trial Ready and the Court will notify the parties of the new trial date and due date for pretrial papers. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 4/13/2016. (jmb)