Cases

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff, Patrick Mendez, commenced this action against his former employer, Radec Corporation (“Radec”), and two of its officers, alleging that Radec has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“Labor Law”), by failing to pay wages to which Mendez was legally entitled. Mendez a

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAR 31 ?:-m Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

OPINION AND ORDER DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 40), which was referred to Magistrate Judge Camille Velez Rivé for a report and recommendation (Docket Nos. 72 and 73). Upon review of Magistrate Judge’s Report an

DECISION AND ORDER LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff, Patrick Mendez, commenced this action against his former employer, Radec Corporation (“Radec”), and two of its officers, alleging that Radec has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“Labor Law”), for failure to pay wages to which Mendez was legally entitled. Mendez als

Brown, Judge. Michael Mendez (“Mendez”), the natural father of D.M., appeals from the trial court’s decree of adoption. Mendez raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in finding that his consent to the adoption was not required. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History D.M. was bom to Mendez

Canzoneri v City of New York (2021 NY Slip Op 02594) Canzoneri v City of New York 2021 NY Slip Op 02594 Decided on April 29, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pur

OPINION AND ORDER JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff Monique M. Bryan-Toledo (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or “Bryan”), an al*238leged resident of the state of Arizona, filed the above-captioned diversity suit for damages against defendant Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Wal-Mart”). See Docket No

460 F.3d 191 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.Eric JONES, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 05-2289-CR. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: January 19, 2006. Decided: August 2, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Steve Baczynski, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rochester, N.Y. (Michael A. Battle, U.S

GORTON, United States District Judge This case arises out of a dispute between two insurance companies as to which one will be required to pay attorneys' fees incurred and any judgment that may be entered in an underlying personal injury lawsuit pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court ("the State Action"). The plaintiff-counter defendant is Firemen's Insurance Company of Washington, D.C. ("Firemen's" or "plaintiff") and the de

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge. BACKGROUND On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff Christina Costa (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action alleging unlawful retaliation against Defendants Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc. (“SHIP”), and Sears Holdings Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

JAMES E. GRITZNER, Senior Judge, U.S. DISTRICT COURT This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (the Motion) *1017pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 filed by Defendants James Carle (Carle), Karl Judd (Judd), and the City of Fort Madison, Iowa (the City) (collectively, Defendants). Plainti

20-3009 United States v. Jones UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2021 (Argued: September 17, 2021 Decided: August 1, 2022) No. 20-3009 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MAUSKOPF, District Judge. Plaintiff Eva Berger-Rothberg (“Plaintiff’) brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq. (“NYCHRL”)

656 F.Supp.2d 277 (2009) Prudencio MENDEZ-APONTE, et als., Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of PUERTO RICO, et als., Defendants. Civ. No. 06-1644 (PG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 16, 2009. *279 Nicolas Nogueras-Cartagena, Patricia Ramirez-Gelpi, Nicolas Nogueras Law Offices, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.</

OPINION AND ORDER DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, United States District Judge Pending before the Court are: (a) plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Opinion and Order and Judgment of Dismissal, Docket No. 151; and, (b) defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 164. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied. Introduction

DECISION and ORDER THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Christopher Miller commenced the instant action asserting that he was discriminated against in connection with his employment on account of his race and gender and that he was retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. Miller asserted claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; 42 U.S

DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Six Plaintiffs commenced this putative collective/class action on May 22, 2008, claiming that Defendants, a health care network and certain of its officers and member entities, violated the: Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), Racketeering I

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Luz Gonzalez-Bermudez (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or “Gonzalez”) filed this action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA” or “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against her employer Abbott Laboratories PR Inc. (“Abbott” or “the Company”) and her supervisor Kim Perez1

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 650 et seq., and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., for Defendants’ alleged failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 82).

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. This action was commenced in New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, by plaintiffs Rosemarie Ozbakir and Ali Demir, against sixteen defendants, alleging various claims arising out of the sale of certain commercial real property (“premises” or “property”) in East Rochester, New York. The action was removed to this Court by one of the defendants, S