DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 233 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AKANNI AMBERSLIE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 9:17-CV-0564 (TJM/DEP) v. PRISONER TRANSPORT SERVICE OF AMERICA, LLC,1 Defendant. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR PLAINTIFF: AKANNI AMBERSLIE, Pro Se 17-B-2005 Livingston Correctional Facility P.O. Box 91 Sonyea, NY 14556 FOR DEFENDANT: GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP JONATHAN M. BERNSTEIN, ESQ. 8 Southwoods Boulevard Suite 300 Albany, NY 12211-2526 1 Defendant's motion papers reflect that the proper name of defendant is "Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC," rather than "Prisoner Transport Service of America, LLC," the name under which it was sued. Dkt. No. 39-3 at 2. The clerk of the court will respectfully be directed to modify the court's records to reflect this change. Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 233 GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP SHANNON T. O'CONNOR, ESQ. 5786 Widewaters Parkway Syracuse, NY 13214-1840 DAVID E. PEEBLES CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER, REPORT, AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Akanni Amberslie, an inmate currently confined in a New York State prison facility, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendant Prisoner Transportation Services, LLC ("PTS"), a corporation organized under Tennessee law, and with its principal place of business near Nashville, Tennessee. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant was engaged to transport him in custody from Fayetteville, Georgia to Broome County, New York as a pretrial detainee, and that during the course of the transport, he was exposed to inhumane conditions rising to a level of constitutional significance. Currently pending before the court is a motion brought by defendant seeking dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6), without leave to replead. In the motion, defendant argues that (1) plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a plausible due process claim; (2) plaintiff's amended complaint fails to allege facts to support that his 2 Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 3 of 233 constitutional rights were violated pursuant to an official policy or custom under the criteria set forth in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); and (3) venue is improper in the Northern District of New York. Alternatively, defendant seeks a transfer of the action to the Middle District of Tennessee, where defendant is headquartered, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted, and plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. I. BACKGROUND2 On March 14, 2017, plaintiff was transferred into the custody of defendant PTS to be transported from Georgia to New York.3 Dkt. No. 35 at 3. In the ensuing days that he was in defendant's custody, plaintiff was 2 In light of the procedural posture of this case, the following recitation is drawn principally from plaintiff's amended complaint, the contents of which have been accepted as true for purposes of the pending motion. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ("[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)); see also Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 546 (1964). I have also considered plaintiff's opposition to the pending motion to the extent that it is consistent with, and elaborates upon, the factual allegations contained in the amended complaint. See Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 147 F.3d 169, 170 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[W]e deem [the plaintiff]’s complaint to include the facts contained in his memorandum of law filed in response to [the defendant]’s 1996 motion to dismiss."). 3 Defendant's transport of plaintiff from Georgia to New York was conducted pursuant to the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000, or "Jeanna's Act", Pub. L. 106-560, S.18998 (Dec. 21, 2000), codified at 34 U.S.C. § 60601 et seq., and the regulations promulgated under that Act and found at 28 C.F.R. Pt. 97. 3 Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 4 of 233 confined to a cramped prisoner transport van, where he was unable to move or stretch for forty or fifty hours at a time. Dkt. No. 45 at 7. Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with his medication in a timely fashion, that he was not given three meals per day, and that he was deprived of the use of the bathroom for up to seven hours at a time, resulting in his having to use a water bottle to relieve himself. Id. at 4-7; see also Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered these conditions as a result of defendant's "policies" and the lack of training of its personnel. Dkt. No. 35. In further support of his claim, plaintiff details the treatment of other individuals he claims were transported by defendant and subjected to either unsafe or inhumane treatment as a result of defendant's policies and lack of training. Dkt. No. 35 at 2-3. As a result of the conditions of his interstate transport, plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a variety of ailments, including anxiety, stress, headaches, night terrors, bladder issues, depression, and pain in his knees. Dkt. No. 45 at 1. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff commenced this action on May 23, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. His original complaint named defendant PTS, the State of New York, and Broome County as defendants. Id. at 1-2. Following the grant of plaintiff's 4 Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 5 of 233 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the court's review of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A, Senior District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued a decision and order on June 8, 2017, in which he (1) dismissed all claims against the State of New York, with prejudice; (2) dismissed plaintiff's claims against the Broome County, without prejudice; (3) dismissed plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against defendant PTS, without prejudice; and (4) ordered that only plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against defendant PTS survived the court's sua sponte review. See generally Dkt. No. 4. In lieu of answering plaintiff’s complaint, defendant moved on August 31, 2017 seeking dismissal of his remaining claims for failure to state a cognizable claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally Dkt. No. 23. Defendant also moved to dismiss on the ground that venue was improper pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and argued, in the alternative, that the action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. See generally id. As a result of that motion, and following my issuance of a report and recommendation, Judge 5 Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 6 of 233 McAvoy issued a decision and order on February 22, 2018 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, but granting him leave to replead. Dkt. Nos. 33, 38. Plaintiff availed himself of the opportunity to replead and filed an amended complaint on February 1, 2018. Dkt. No. 35. On March 6, 2018, defendant again moved for dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing in the alternative that the action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and on May 31, 2018, submitted additional materials in support of its motion. Dkt. Nos. 39, 46. Plaintiff filed papers in opposition to the motion on May 25, 2018. Dkt. No. 45. Defendant's motion, which is now fully briefed and ripe for determination, has been referred to me for the issuance of a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(c). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). III. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue4 4 As a magistrate judge, although I lack the authority, absent consent of the parties, to order dismissal of an action, a venue transfer is regarded as a non- dispositive matter, which falls within the scope of my non-consensual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because defendant's motion to transfer venue is raised in conjunction with its motion to dismiss, however, I have chosen to format my response to that motion as a recommendation to Judge McAvoy. 6 Case 9:17-cv-00564-TJM-DEP Document 50 Filed 03/04/19 Page 7 of 233 In its motion, defendant asserts that venue is improperly laid in the Northern District of New York, and that it is therefore entitled to dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 39-10 at 18-22.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basic Study on Deformation Evaluation of Steel Wire Mesh for Rational Gabion Structure Design ….…………………………………….……………..………………
    Copyright © 2019, Publication Division, Center of Technology (CoT) Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University Print edition ISSN 2615-5109 Electronic edition ISSN 2621-0541 Reproduction in whole or in part by any means, is subject to the permission in writing by Publication Division, Center of Technology (CoT), Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University. All Rights Reserved. Publisher: Center of Technology, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Hasanuddin Address: Engineering Faculty Campus, Hasanuddin University Jl. Poros Malino km. 6, Bontomarannu Kabupaten Gowa, Sulawesi Selatan, Indonesia, 92171 Email : [email protected] Website : cot.unhas.ac.id/journals/index.php/epiije Telp/Fax : +62-(0)411-58601 EPI International Journal of Engineering Editor-in-Chief : Prof. Baharuddin Hamzah, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Associate Editors : Dr. Faisal Mahmuddin, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. Yoshihiro Narita, Hokkaido University (Sapporo, Japan) Guest Editor : Dr. Adi Maulana, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Editorial Board : Indonesia Dr. Muh. Arsyad Thaha, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. Hammada Abbas, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. M. Ramli Rahim, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. Herman Parung, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. Imran Umar, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Dr. Rhiza S. Sadjad, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Dr. Ganding Sitepu, Hasanuddin University (Makassar, Indonesia) Prof. Satriyo Brodjonegoro, Bandung Institute of Technology (Bandung, Indonesia) Prof. I Ketut Aria Pria Utama, Surabaya Institute of Technology (Surabaya, Indonesia) Dr. Arifuddin Idrus, Gadjah Mada University (Yogyakarta, Indonesia) Dr. Ngurah Nitya, Udayana University (Denpasar, Indonesia) Dr. Putu Wijaya Sunu, Bali State Polytechnic (Denpasar, Indonesia) Dr. Lukiyanto YB, Sanata Dharma University (Yogyakarta, Indonesia) Outside Indonesia Prof. Erasmo Carrera, Polytechnic University of Turin (Torino, Italy) Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Order
    Case 17-3415, Document 72-1, 08/21/2018, 2372067, Page1 of 3 17-3415-cv Eisner v. Eros Int’l PLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of August, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.* FRED EISNER, STRAHINJA IVOŠEVIČ, Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants, 17-3415-cv MATHEW ABRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JAWED ARSANI, RAJIV SHARMA, Consolidated Plaintiffs, * Judge Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Case 17-3415, Document 72-1, 08/21/2018, 2372067, Page2 of 3 VLADIMIR MALIAROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC, JYOTI DESHPANDE, ANDREW HEFFERNAN, PREM PARAMESWARAN, KISHORE LULLA, Defendants-Appellees, RISHIKA LULLA, DAVID MAISEL, Consolidated Defendants, VIJAY AHUJA, NARESH CHANDRA, DILIP THAKKAR, SUNIL LULLA, MICHAEL KIRKWOOD, KEN NAZ, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, UBS SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, EM SECURITIES LLC, Defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • X : ARIANNA DURANT, PPA BLAKE DURANT : Plaintiff : 15 CV 1183 (JBA) V
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT --------------------------------------------------------X : ARIANNA DURANT, PPA BLAKE DURANT : Plaintiff : 15 CV 1183 (JBA) v. : : : TARGET STORES, INC., : Defendant/Cross Claimant : : v. : : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 : AMERICAN SPECIALTIES, INC. : Defendant/Cross Defendant : --------------------------------------------------------X RULING ON DEFENDANT AMERICAN SPECIALTIES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST TARGET (Dkt. #64) On or about July 6, 2015, plaintiff Arianna Durant, PPA Blake Durant, commenced this action against defendants Target Stores, Inc. and American Specialties, Inc. in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Bridgeport, arising out of injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff from the handicap rail in a Target restroom;1 the action was removed to this court on August 4, 2015 by defendant Target. (Dkt. #1).2 On March 22, 2016, American Specialties filed its Answer with special defenses (Dkt. #18), and on April 11, 2016, Target filed its Answer with affirmative defenses and special defenses. (Dkt. #20). On the 1Specifically, plaintiff alleges that on July 29, 2014, the handicap bar in the family restroom in the Target store in Trumbull, Connecticut fell on the minor plaintiff’s hand, causing the amputation of her pinkie finger. 2There were two related cases pending before Judge Arterton involving injuries sustained from the handicap bar in the restroom in Target stores in Connecticut -- this matter, which was removed to this court in August 2015, and Gawel v. Target Stores, Inc. et al, 16 CV 371(JBA), which was removed from state court to this court in March 2016. On September 8, 2017, plaintiff in Gawel filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of his claims against Target.
    [Show full text]
  • Issuing a Summary Order
    Case: 13-3895 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 10/09/2014 1340473 3 13-3895-cv Judy Prescott Barnett v. Connecticut Light & Power Company, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 9th day of October, two thousand fourteen. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ JUDY PRESCOTT BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 13-3895-cv CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER COMPANY, NORTHEAST UTILITIES, NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY, UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Gabriel N. Seymour, Gabriel N. Seymour PC, Falls Village, CT (Whitney N. Seymour, Jr., New York, N.Y., on the brief). Appearing for Appellees: Anthony M. Fitzgerald (Sherwin M. Yoder, on the brief), Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, New Haven, CT, for Connecticut Light & Power Company, Northeast Utilities, and Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER at a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for T
    Case 1:17-cv-03808-LAK Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 4 of 10 15-3109-cv Micula, et al. v. Gov't of Romania UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x IOAN MICULA, EUROPEAN FOOD S.A., S.C. STARMILL S.R.L., MULTIPACK S.R.L, AND VIOREL MICULA, Petitioners/Intervenor-Appellees, v. 15-3109-cv GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA, Respondent-Appellant. * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform to the above. Case 1:17-cv-03808-LAK Document 26 Filed 10/24/17 Page 5 of 10 FOR INTERVENOR-APPELLEE DANFORTH NEWCOMB (Paula H. Anderson, VIOREL MICULA: on the brief), Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 18-____ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Respondent; MARCUS CHISM, Real Party in Interest. ———— On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California ———— PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— G. DANIEL NEWLAND ROBERT J. CARTY, JR. ERIC MICHAEL LLOYD Counsel of Record SEYFARTH SHAW LLP SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street 700 Milam Street Suite 3100 Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Houston, TX 77002 (415) 397-2823 (713) 225-2300 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] FREDERICK T. SMITH ESTHER SLATER MCDONALD SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 885-1500 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner October 23, 2018 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant unless the conduct giving rise to the cause of action occurred in the forum state and caused harm within that state. Here, the courts of California have exercised specific jurisdiction over a defendant in a putative nationwide class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even though none of the alleged conduct occurred in California and the plaintiff alleges no harm there (or anywhere else). Given California’s rule that defendants who litigate on the merits waive personal- jurisdiction arguments, FCRA defendants are likely to choose settlement rather than seek relief in this Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    Case 16-4153, Document 135-1, 07/17/2018, 2346369, Page1 of 6 16‐4153‐cv Sistem v. Kyrgyz Republic UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTʹS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of July, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x SISTEM MÜHENDISLIK INŞAAT SANAYI VE TICARET, A.Ş., Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. 16‐4153‐cv THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC, Defendant‐Appellant. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLEE: ROBERT K. KRY (Sarah J. Newman, on the brief), MoloLamken LLP, Washington, District of Columbia. Case 16-4153, Document 135-1, 07/17/2018, 2346369, Page2 of 6 FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: A. GRANT McCREA, Law Offices of A. Grant McCrea, New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    [Show full text]
  • RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS Summaries from September 2016 to March 2017
    RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS Summaries from September 2016 to March 2017 STANDING AND for the homeowners associations to the ef- K. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, ENFORCEABILITY OF fect that the associations lacked standing to Federal Practice & Procedure § 3531 CONTRACTS enforce the agreement. The Court rejected (2008) (noting, however, that the the sewer service’s assertion of a lack of United States Supreme Court, itself, standing with a scholarly recitation of the has on occasion ‘succumbed to the The Gardens at Glenlakes Property law of standing: temptation to mingle these questions’). Owners Assn., Inc. v. Baldwin County The concept of standing implicates The authors go on to explain: Sewer Service, LLC, [Ms. 1150563, Sept. a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. “’Standing goes to the exis- 23, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2016). In this See State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow tence of sufficient adversari- plurality opinion (Main, J., Bolin, Shaw, Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. ness to satisfy both Article and Bryan, JJ., concurring; Murdock, J., 1999) (“When a party without stand- III case-or-controversy concurring in the result), the Supreme ing purports to commence an action, requirements and prudential Court reverses a judgment of the Baldwin the trial court acquires no subject- concerns. In determining Circuit Court and remands the cause for matter jurisdiction.”). As Justice Lyons standing, the nature of the further consideration to determine the wrote in Hamm v. Norfolk Southern injury asserted is relevant to enforceability of an agreement among Ry., 52 So. 3d 484, 499 (Ala. 2010) determine the existence of property owners associations and a local (Lyons, J., concurring specially): the required personal stake sewer service provider.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    Case: 18-1684 Document: 00117706486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Entry ID: 6402263 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 18-1618; 18-1684 MARIA SUÁREZ-TORRES and NORBETO MEDINA-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. PANADERIA Y RESPOSTERIA ESPAÑA, INC., d/b/a PANADERIA ESPAÑA and IMMOBILIARIA ISLA VERDE, INC., Defendants, Appellees. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Lipez, and Dyk, Circuit Judges. Jose Carlos Velez Colon for appellants, with whom Law Offices of Velez-Colon was on brief. José Enrico Valenzuela-Alvarado for appellees, with whom Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC was on brief. February 17, 2021 Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 18-1684 Document: 00117706486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Entry ID: 6402263 LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from a lawsuit brought by appellants Maria Suárez-Torres and Norberto Medina- Rodriguez against appellees Panaderia y Reposteria España, Inc., a bakery in Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Inmobiliaria Isla Verde, Inc. (collectively, "Panaderia España")1 under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")2 and the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act.3 Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez appeal the district court's post-judgment denial of their motion for attorney's fees and motion to reopen. After careful review, we affirm. I. Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez are described in the complaint as "testers" who visit local places of public accommodation in Puerto Rico primarily to assess and challenge violations of the ADA.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City–Philadelphia Area by Lynn R
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1696–1719, August 2008, doi: 10.1785/0120070167 Ⓔ Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City–Philadelphia Area by Lynn R. Sykes, John G. Armbruster, Won-Young Kim, and Leonardo Seeber Abstract A catalog of 383 earthquakes in southeastern New York, southwestern Connecticut, northern New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania, including metropolitan New York City and Philadelphia, is compiled from historical and instrumental data from 1677 through 2006. A magnitude-felt area relationship is used to calculate the equivalent magnitude mbLg prior to the advent of abundant instrumental data in 1974. Revised locations are computed for a number of historic earthquakes. Most hypo- centers are concentrated in older terranes bordering the Mesozoic Newark basin in the Reading, Manhattan, and Trenton prongs and in similar rocks found at a shallow depth beneath the coastal plain from south of New York City across central New Jersey. Historic shocks of mbLg 3 and larger were most numerous in the latter zone. The largest known event, mbLg 5.25, occurred just offshore of New York City in 1884. Many earthquakes have occurred beneath the 12-km wide Ramapo seismic zone (RSZ) in the eastern part of the Reading prong, where station coverage was the most ex- tensive since 1974. The southeastern boundary of the RSZ, which is nearly vertical, extends from near the surface trace of the Mesozoic Ramapo fault to depths of 12–15 km. Because the Mesozoic border fault dips about 50°–60° southeast, earth- quakes of the RSZ are occurring within middle Proterozoic through early Paleozoic rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut College Alumni Magazine, Summer 1983 Connecticut College
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Linda Lear Center for Special Collections & Alumni News Archives Summer 1983 Connecticut College Alumni Magazine, Summer 1983 Connecticut College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/alumnews Recommended Citation Connecticut College, "Connecticut College Alumni Magazine, Summer 1983" (1983). Alumni News. Paper 225. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/alumnews/225 This Magazine is brought to you for free and open access by the Linda Lear Center for Special Collections & Archives at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Alumni News by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. Alum i MqJ=rzire -:..\.\~\() Editorial Board: Vivian Segall '73, Editor (13 New London, CT, four times a year in Winter, Faigle '63, and Sally Duffield Wilder '46, Main Street, Noank, CT 06340) I Katherine Spring, Summer, Fall. Second-class postage Directors / Committee Chairmen: Jeanne Gould '81 I Sarah Hargrove Harris '57 I paid at New London, CT 06320. Send form Caldwell Raudenbush '69 (Nominating) / Wayne Swanson Marilyn Ellman Frankel '64 I 3579 to Sykes Alumni Center, Connecticut Mary Ann Garvin Seigel '66 (Alumni .Giving) / I Roberta Finley '71, Class Notes Editor I College, New London, CT 06320. CASE Carole A. Filice '74 (Clubs) / Lee White Elizabeth Damerel Gongaware '26, Assistant member. Graham '61 (Finance and Programs) / George Editor I Warren T. Erickson '74 and Louise Alumni Association Executive Board: F. Hulme'77 (Classes) I Louise Stevenso.n. Stevenson Andersen '41, ex officio.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Tributes: Volume 13
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/12734 SHARE Memorial Tributes: Volume 13 DETAILS 338 pages | 6 x 9 | HARDBACK ISBN 978-0-309-14225-0 | DOI 10.17226/12734 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK National Academy of Engineering FIND RELATED TITLES Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 13 Memorial Tributes NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FFrontront MMatter.inddatter.indd i 33/23/10/23/10 33:40:26:40:26 PMPM Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 13 FFrontront MMatter.inddatter.indd iiii 33/23/10/23/10 33:40:27:40:27 PMPM Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 13 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Memorial Tributes Volume 13 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. 2010 FFrontront MMatter.inddatter.indd iiiiii 33/23/10/23/10 33:40:27:40:27 PMPM Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 13 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14225-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14225-3 Additional copies of this publication are available from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, N.W.
    [Show full text]