DOCSLIB.ORG

CC.1 Memorandum in Support of Intervention and Amendment of Complaint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CC.1 Memorandum in Support of Intervention and Amendment of Complaint CC.1 Memorandum In Support of Intervention and Amendment of Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [plaintiff][PLAINTIFF 1], individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, [plaintiff]Plaintiffs, -against- [defendant]RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC., doing business as RITE AID, RITE AID CORPORATION, [defendant]Defendants. [action]No. 08-cv-11364 (JPO)(HBP) ________________________________________ [plaintiff][PLAINTIFF 2], individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, [plaintiff]Plaintiffs, -against- [defendant]RITE AID CORPORATION and ECKERD CORPORATION d/b/a RITE AID, [defendant]Defendants. [action]No. 11-cv-0012 (JPO)(HBP) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF [PLAINTIFF 2] AND PROPOSED INTERVENOR [PROPOSED INTERVENOR]’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND TO INTERVENE A SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE Plaintiff [plaintiff 2] (“Plaintiff” or “[plaintiff 2]”) and Proposed Intervenor [proposed intervenor] (“Proposed Intervenor” or “[proposed intervenor]”), respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion for leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) in order to intervene [proposed intervenor] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) as a substitute class representative in lieu of [plaintiff 2]. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for an Order permitting Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint (Exhibit A to the Notice of Motion), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff and Proposed Intervenor also request leave to amend the pleading in order to intervene [proposed intervenor] as a substitute class representative under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). This relief should be granted because leave to amend should be freely given; because there is no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff or Proposed Intervenor in seeking this relief; and because Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment or intervention. II. BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 1, 2010 seeking relief from Rite Aid Corporation’s (“Rite Aid” or “Defendants”) practice of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of New York Labor Law pursuant to a company policy aimed at avoiding paying overtime compensation. (Dkt. No. 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2010, asserting that the claims in this case were already pending in this Court in Indergit. (Dkt. No. 8). On December 3, 2010, at Plaintiff’s suggestion, Judge Irizarry entered an order transferring this action to the Southern District of New York to join the Indergit and other actions. Defendants subsequently re-filed a motion to dismiss on January 18, 2011. (Dkt. No. 18). On June 23, 2011, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Pitman for a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32), which motion was rendered moot by subsequent proceedings before Judge Pitman that clarified and consolidated the status of the several parallel actions then before the Court. (Dkt. No. 34). In the summer of 2011, discovery began in this case, and among other discovery, depositions of several members of the putative class have taken place, including, as here relevant, the Proposed Intervenor’s deposition. In October 2011, Plaintiff [plaintiff 2] returned to his home country, Haiti, for an indefinite period of time because he could not find work in the United States, and in order to be with his extended family. See Declaration of Nicholas A. Migliaccio in Support of Plaintiff [plaintiff 2] and Proposed Intervenor [proposed intervenor]’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and to Intervene a Substitute Class Representative, at ¶ 2 (“Migliaccio Decl.”). Since that time, Plaintiffs’ counsel has had considerable difficulty reaching [plaintiff 2] because he does not have e-mail access, a permanent mailing address, or a permanent telephone number. Id. at ¶ 3. Indeed, most recently, [plaintiff 2] was difficult to reach when Plaintiffs’ counsel sought to schedule his deposition, which was noticed for December 8, 2011. Id. at ¶ 4. Ultimately, after discussing the matter with [plaintiff 2] and the difficulties imposed by his communication status vis-à-vis his being a class representative, [plaintiff 2] agreed to withdraw as a putative class representative pending substitution of another class representative. Id. at ¶ 5. On or about November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed substituting another class representative for [plaintiff 2] and sought Defendants’ consent to the intervention. Id. at ¶ 6. On or about November 30, 2011, Defendants declined to give their consent. Id. at ¶ 7. Proposed Intervenor [proposed intervenor] is a member of the proposed class and has already been deposed. Id. at ¶ 8. She worked as an assistant store manager for Rite Aid during the relevant class period at its store located in Lackawanna, New York, and she is willing to be substituted into this case as a party plaintiff and serve as a class representative on behalf of the class. Id. at ¶ 9. III. ARGUMENT A. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE GRANTED Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs the amendment of pleadings and provides, in relevant part, that “a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Supreme Court has instructed courts to “heed” this mandate, holding that amendments should be freely allowed in the absence of considerations such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A., 899 F.2d 195, 198 (2d Cir. 1990) (“leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15); Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Although the decision to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the court, refusal to grant leave must be based on a valid ground.”). In the absence of prejudice, leave to amend is normally warranted. Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 1975). Leave to amend is warranted where, as here, justice requires the amendment, and the amendment does not prejudice Defendants. First, justice, in the form of the fair ability of the putative class to have an adequate class representative present, supports the leave to amend. There is no question in this Circuit that ensuring an adequate class representative prior to a motion for class certification is a desired goal. See infra, citations at pages 6–7. And the alternative of not permitting an amendment, but, instead, requiring adjudication of [plaintiff 2]’s adequacy, would only create pure delay because, assuming all the other prerequisites for Rule 23 certification are met, it is well recognized that an otherwise adequate class should be permitted to find an adequate representative. See, e.g., In re Nat’l Australia Bank Sec. Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94163, at *11–14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006) (the weight of authority holds that when a proposed class representative is found inadequate, a reasonable period of time should be afforded for a substitute to be found). Accordingly, as was held in In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38768, at *9–10 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2008) (internal citations omitted), as to Rule 15 motions relative to substitute class representatives: Courts have generally permitted the addition or substitution of class representatives when there is no showing of prejudice to defendants and such addition or substitution would advance the purposes served by class certification. “[T]he procedure favored by the Second Circuit” requires that “where the named plaintiff is no longer an adequate representative of the class . rather than decertifying the instant class on the ground that the named plaintiffs are no longer adequate representatives of the class, [the court should] afford[] plaintiffs’ counsel a reasonable period of time for the substitution or intervention of a new class representative.” Second, the amendment and resulting intervention will not unduly delay the proceedings because [proposed intervenor] is available as a substitution for Plaintiff, and she, in fact, has already been deposed in this case. Moreover, to the extent that Defendants desire to re-depose [proposed intervenor] on issues relating to her adequacy as a class representative that were not addressed at her prior deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel will agree to make her available again at Defendants’ earliest convenience. Thus, there will be no delay whatsoever in the proceedings, much less undue delay. Third, Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith in seeking this amendment. As detailed above, Plaintiffs’ counsel promptly contacted Defendants to advise them that [plaintiff 2] could not continue to serve as an adequate class representative and that Plaintiff intended to seek to substitute another class representative, and sought Defendants’ consent to the intervention. Finally, Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment. As detailed above, [proposed intervenor] is a member of the putative class, discovery has not yet been completed, and her further deposition can easily be taken prior to the time Plaintiffs move for class certification. Further, an opposing party who has had notice of the general nature of the claim or matters asserted in the supplemental pleading from the beginning of the action will not be prejudiced by the granting of leave to file the supplemental pleading. See Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 71 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 1995) (“leave to file a supplemental pleading should be freely permitted when the supplemental facts connect it to the original pleading”). [Proposed intervenor] makes the same claims as [plaintiff 2]: namely that she, and the putative class, was denied overtime wages pursuant to a company policy aimed at avoiding paying overtime compensation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case No.: SC13-849 )
    SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC13-849 District Case No.: 3D12-3443 Lower Tribunal No.: 10-42068 HILDA SUAREZ, ORLANDO ) Fla. Bar No.: 480400 GARCIA, JR. and LISETTE ) GARCIA, ) Defendants/Appellants, ) v. ) CITIMORTGAGE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) INITIAL BRIEF Writ of Mandamus Gary Barcus, Esq. Attorney for Hilda Suarez, Orlando Garcia, Jr. and Lisette Garcia TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Statement of the Case................................................... 1-3 II. Facts ....................................................................... 4-9 III. Issues to be Considered upon Appeal ................................. 10 1. Whether Appellee's Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff complies with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100 requiring it to "specify with particularity the grounds upon which the motion is based and set forth the relief or order sought." [The Author's Comments states: "These Requirements are mandatory.] 2. Whether Penny Mac Loan 2012 Trust NPL-1, who purchased the mortgage September, 2012, from PennyMac Mortgage Company LLC, which had purchased the mortgage from CitiMortgage, Inc. effective January 25, 2012, may be substituted as party plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure even though it was NOT mentioned in the Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff? 3. Whether the Order ofNovember 30, 2012 denying the Motion to Dismiss the foreclosure lawsuit brought by CitiMortgage, Inc. should have been granted. IV. Analysis ofLaw ......................................................... 11-13 V. Conclusion ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Substitution Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(D): Mootness and Related Problems
    Substitution Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d): Mootness and Related Problems Although private suits against the government may be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity,' it has long been recognized that in certain circumstances a private litigant may seek equitable relief "intrinsically against the government" by naming a govern- ment officer as defendant.' These cases present particular difficul- ties when the named defendant, for whatever reason, leaves office during the course of the litigation and is succeeded. At common law, a successor could not be substituted as defendant in a suit that had been brought against the predecessor in his official capacity unless a statute or court rule permitted the substitution;' the action was said to abate.4 A plaintiff thwarted by a succession in office would thus have to begin the litigation anew in order to acquire the desired relief.5 Since the subsequent suit generally involved the relitigation of numerous issues,' the abatement doctrine has been widely and properly criticized for causing the waste of both judicial and per- 7 sonal resources. 1 See generally 3 K. DAvis, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE §§ 27.01-27.05, 27.09 (1958). 2 E.g., Philadelphia Co. v. Steinson, 223 U.S. 605 (1912); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). See generally Davis, Sovereign Immunity in Suits Against Officers for Relief Other than Damages, 40 CORNELL L.Q. 3 (1954); Block, Suits Against Officers and the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine, 59 HARV. L. REv. 1060 (1946). 3 See, e.g., United States ex rel. Bernadin v. Butterworth, 169 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 971 Criminal Procedure — Proceedings Before and at Trial
    Updated 2019−20 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. October 1, 2021. 1 Updated 19−20 Wis. Stats. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL 971.025 CHAPTER 971 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL 971.01 Filing of the information. 971.19 Place of trial. 971.02 Preliminary examination; when prerequisite to an information or indict- 971.20 Substitution of judge. ment. 971.22 Change of place of trial. 971.025 Forms. 971.223 Change of place of trial for certain violations. 971.027 Protected information. 971.225 Jury from another county. 971.03 Form of information. 971.23 Discovery and inspection. 971.04 Defendant to be present. 971.26 Formal defects. 971.05 Arraignment. 971.27 Lost information, complaint or indictment. 971.06 Pleas. 971.28 Pleading judgment. 971.07 Multiple defendants. 971.29 Amending the charge. 971.08 Pleas of guilty and no contest; withdrawal thereof. 971.30 Motion defined. 971.09 Plea of guilty to offenses committed in several counties. 971.31 Motions before trial. 971.095 Consultation with and notices to victim. 971.315 Inquiry upon dismissal. 971.10 Speedy trial. 971.32 Ownership, how alleged. 971.105 Child victims and witnesses; duty to expedite proceedings. 971.109 Freezing assets of a person charged with financial exploitation of an elder 971.33 Possession of property, what sufficient. person. 971.34 Intent to defraud. 971.11 Prompt disposition of intrastate detainers. 971.36 Theft; pleading and evidence; subsequent prosecutions. 971.12 Joinder of crimes and of defendants. 971.365 Crimes involving certain controlled substances.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: the Undeveloped Arguments, from the Race to the Bottom to the Substitution Effect
    Maine Law Review Volume 62 Number 1 Article 2 January 2010 The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From the Race to the Bottom to the Substitution Effect David Crump Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation David Crump, The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From the Race to the Bottom to the Substitution Effect, 62 Me. L. Rev. 1 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol62/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CASE FOR RESTRICTING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: THE UNDEVELOPED ARGUMENTS, FROM THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM TO THE SUBSTITUTION EFFECT David Crump I. INTRODUCTION II. TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A. In Favor of Diversity: The Continuing Justifications B. Against Diversity: The Traditional Arguments III. BAD INCENTIVES AS NEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST DIVERSITY A. The Ice Bowl Effect: A Race to the Bottom B. Harassing the Little Guy: How Lawyers Manipulate Jurisdiction by Joining Unnecessary Parties C. Raising the Cost: How Passive-Aggressive Litigants Change the Battlefield D. Bias: Why Certain Parties Want a Federal Forum IV. CONFUSION AND DISTORTION AS NEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST DIVERSITY A. The Twilight-Zone Effect of Removal B. The Substitution Effect: Why Frustration of State Policy Is Worse Than the Traditional Arguments Recognize V.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]
  • CH 29 Indictments, Information, Complaints
    INDICTMENTS, INFORMATIONS, COMPLAINTS ........................................... 1 §29-1 Manner of Charging – Discretion in Bringing Charges ................................ 1 §29-2 Grand Jury Proceedings ...................................................................................... 9 §29-3 Dismissal of Charges ........................................................................................... 18 §29-4 Sufficiency of Charge .......................................................................................... 25 §29-4(a) Generally .................................................................................................... 25 §29-4(b) In Charging Offense (Also See Substantive Offense) ....................... 35 §29-5 Amendment of ....................................................................................................... 44 §29-6 Statute of Limitations ......................................................................................... 48 i INDICTMENTS, INFORMATIONS, COMPLAINTS §29-1 Manner of Charging – Discretion in Bringing Charges United States Supreme Court U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996) Defendants were charged with conspiring to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute. They alleged that they had been selected for prosecution on the basis of their race and presented an affidavit showing that African-American defendants had been involved in all twenty-four prosecutions for this offense handled in 1991 by the Federal Public Defender's Office
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Party And
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION REGINA CROCHERON, Plaintiff, Case Number 19-12755 v. Honorable David M. Lawson STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., Defendant. ________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY AND SUBSTITUTING PARTY PLAINTIFF Plaintiff Regina Crocheron bought a homeowner’s insurance policy from defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. When State Farm refused to pay a loss caused by a fire that damaged her home and belongings, she filed the present lawsuit for breach of contract. However, Crocheron had filed a bankruptcy case before this case was filed, and she now seeks to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff under federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) as the real party in interest. State Farm opposes the motion, contending that the substitution is governed by Rule 15 as an amendment to the complaint, which does not relate back to the date the complaint was filed, and therefore the substitution would render the lawsuit untimely. State Farm is wrong on both counts. The motion will be granted, and the trustee will be substituted as the plaintiff. I. Regina Crocheron owns a home in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. She obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, which insured her home and personal property against loss caused by fire damage. On May 4, 2018, while the policy was in effect, a fire broke out, damaging Crocheron’s residence and personal property. Crocheron filed a loss claim with State Farm, but the defendant denied it on December 12, 2018 for several reasons not pertinent to the present motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Rules Civil Procedure
    FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DECEMBER 1, 2016 E PL UR UM IB N U U S Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 114TH CONGRESS " COMMITTEE PRINT ! No. 8 2nd Session FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DECEMBER 1, 2016 E PL UR UM IB N U U S Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington RAU´ L LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California RON DeSANTIS, Florida MIMI WALTERS, California KEN BUCK, Colorado JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas DAVE TROTT, Michigan MIKE BISHOP, Michigan SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel (II) FOREWORD This document contains the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to- gether with forms, as amended to December 1, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:12-Cv-04179-JS-AYS Document 56 Filed 02/12/15 Page
    Case 2:12-cv-04179-JS-AYS Document 56 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------X ROBERT ENGLISH, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 12-CV-4179(JS)(SIL) -against– BARBARA MURPHY-LATTANZI, Defendant. ---------------------------------------X APPEARANCES For Plaintiff: Thomas P. Mohen, Esq. Jonathan Mark Cader, Esq. Jonathan Temchin, Esq. Mark E. Spund, Esq. Davidoff Hutcher & Citron 200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 315 Garden City, NY 11530 For Defendant: Kenneth J. DeMoura, Esq. DeMoura/Smith LLP One International Place, 14th Floor Boston, MA 02110 SEYBERT, District Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert English’s (“Plaintiff’s”) motion to substitute Larry Lattanzi (“Lattanzi”), the Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara Murphy- Lattanzi, as the defendant in this action. (Docket Entry 49.) Defendant Barbara Murphy-Lattanzi (“Defendant”) passed away on March 3, 2014. In this motion to substitute, Plaintiff also seeks to reinstate the parties’ summary judgment motions. In addition, Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Court’s June 2, 2014 Case 2:12-cv-04179-JS-AYS Document 56 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: <pageID> Order extending the time to substitute a proper party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). (Docket Entry 45.) For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to substitute is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. The parties may refile summary judgment motions. BACKGROUND Because resolution of the pending motion does not require a detailed discussion of the facts and underlying allegations in this case, the Court will only provide a brief summary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Branch, Spring 2000
    TheThe ThirdThird BranchBranch A PUBLICATION OF THE WISCONSIN JUDICIARY Vol. 8, No. 2 www.courts.state.wi.us Spring 2000 Clark is Clerk of Supreme Court/Court of Appeals n early April, the Wisconsin Supreme processing of matters from the time that they are filed with each ICourt appointed Cornelia G. Clark to be court until their ultimate disposition. The clerk also supervises a clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of staff of 15 employees. Appeals. Clark had been acting clerk since Clark’s tenure with the court system began in 1976 when she the retirement of Marilyn L. Graves, who joined the Director of State Courts Office as a receptionist and then stepped down in January after serving as became the judicial assignment assistant. Clark transferred to the clerk for 23 years (see story in The Third Clerk’s Office in 1980, serving first as a deputy clerk from 1980 to Branch, winter 2000). 1991 and then as chief deputy from 1991 until Graves’ retirement The clerk of the Supreme Court and when Clark was named acting clerk. Court of Appeals is the custodian of all Clark received her bachelor’s degree (cum laude) from Upper Wisconsin appellate court records and is Iowa University and is currently enrolled in the Certified Public Cornelia G. Clark responsible for the supervision and Manager Program through the University of Wisconsin-Madison. ❖ Legislature Acts on Crime Foster, Troy Are New Prevention Donations Chief Judges he Supreme Court on April 26 appointed Judge Kathryn W. by: Sheryl A. Gervasi TFoster, Waukesha County Circuit Court, and Judge Joseph Legislative Liaison M.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Rules of Civil Procedure
    April 2021 CIVIL PROCEDURE Ch 1, p.i CHAPTER 1 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DIVISION I OPERATION OF RULES Rule 1.101 Applicability; statutes affected Rules 1.102 to 1.200 Reserved DIVISION II ACTIONS, JOINDER OF ACTIONS AND PARTIES A. PARTIES GENERALLY; CAPACITY Rule 1.201 Real party in interest Rule 1.202 Public bond Rule 1.203 Partnerships Rule 1.204 Foreign corporations Rule 1.205 Assignees; exception Rule 1.206 Injury or death of a minor Rule 1.207 Actions by and against state Rule 1.208 Married persons Rule 1.209 Desertion of family Rule 1.210 Minors; incompetents Rule 1.211 Defense by incompetent, prisoner, etc Rule 1.212 Guardian ad litem Rules 1.213 to 1.220 Reserved B. SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES Rule 1.221 Substitution at death; limitation Rule 1.222 Transfer of interest Rule 1.223 Incapacity pending action Rule 1.224 Nonabatement in case of guardianship Rule 1.225 Majority of minor Rule 1.226 Officers; representatives Rule 1.227 Notice to substituted party Rules 1.228 to 1.230 Reserved C. JOINDER; MISJOINDER AND NONJOINDER Rule 1.231 Actions joined Rule 1.232 Multiple plaintiffs Rule 1.233 Permissive joinder of defendants Rule 1.234 Necessary parties; joinder Rule 1.235 Parties partly interested Rule 1.236 Remedy for misjoinder Rule 1.237 Dependent remedies joined Rules 1.238 to 1.240 Reserved D. COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSS-CLAIMS Rule 1.241 Compulsory counterclaims Rule 1.242 Permissive counterclaims Rule 1.243 Joinder of counterclaims Rule 1.244 Counterclaim not limited Rule 1.245 Cross-claim against coparty Rule 1.246 Third-party practice Rules 1.247 to 1.250 Reserved E.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of the STATE of NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DECISIONS FILED MARCH 19, 2021 HON. GERALD J. WHALEN, PRESIDING JUSTICE HON. NANCY E. SMITH HON. JOHN V. CENTRA HON. ERIN M. PERADOTTO HON. EDWARD D. CARNI HON. STEPHEN K. LINDLEY HON. PATRICK H. NEMOYER HON. JOHN M. CURRAN HON. SHIRLEY TROUTMAN HON. JOANNE M. WINSLOW HON. TRACEY A. BANNISTER HON. BRIAN F. DEJOSEPH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES MARK W. BENNETT, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 823 KA 17-00271 PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID ALLIGOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M. Argento, J.), rendered June 23, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by directing that the sentence imposed on count three of the indictment shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count one of the indictment, and as modified the judgment is affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]) stemming from the shooting of a patron at a bar in Rochester.
    [Show full text]