Pathania v. District Council 37 (Local 1503) et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 51 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in accordance with the attached Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack on 6/18/2013. (Weiner, Amy)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X AJAY PATHANIA, Plaintiff, -againstMETROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, ORDER CV–11–2119 (JMA) Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States Magistrate Judge: On March 21, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (the “Memorandum and Order”) granting in part and denying in part defendant Metropolitan Museum of Art’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 43. In that Memorandum and Order, the Court granted defendant summary judgment as to all of plaintiff’s claims except the claim that defendant retaliated against him, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), by denying him overtime hours (the “Remaining Claim”). On April 5, 2013, I denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. On June 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), withdrawing the Remaining Claim (the “Stipulation”). ECF No. 50. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) provides that “When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” There is no just reason for a delay in entering final judgment in this case. In the Memorandum and Order, the Court fully adjudicated the parties’ rights as to all claims besides the Remaining Claim, which plaintiff subsequently withdrew with prejudice. 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter final judgment for defendant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), with respect to plaintiff’s claims for (1) discrimination in violation of Title VII, (2) retaliatory termination in violation of Title VII, and (3) breach of contract. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2013 Brooklyn, New York ____________________/s/_____________ JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?