Valdez v. Rubenstein et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Pltff's complaint filed on 9/23/11, arising from Defts' alleged failure to pay him the prevailing wage for work he performed in 1993 and 1994, is time barred. Pltff's affirmation does not present a basis for equit able tolling. Pltff appears to argue that his claim should not be dismissed as time-barred because Defts still owe him $6140.00 and the claim is, therefore, "still open." However, this Court has already dismissed Pltff's complaint to the extent he seeks to relitigate state court claims or enforce a state court judgment. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: That this action is dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 12/7/2011) c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

r

FILED

J

IN CLERK'S OFFIC~

(

USDISTRICTCOUFIH- i":Jn_

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------X

_DEC 0 8 2C11

~~ ~~

BROOKLYN OFFICE \

((!;)

ZENON VALDEZ,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Plaintiff,
-against-

11-CV -5256 (SLT) (RLM)

STEVEN RUBENSTEIN and STRATFORD
ENVIRONMENTAL,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------X
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

This Court issued a Memorandum & Order, dated November 17, 2011 dismissing prose
Plaintiff's complaint to the extent he sought to relitigate claims filed in state court or to enforce a
judgment entered in state court. Further, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the
action, construed by the Court as a Fair Labor Standards Act claim, should not be dismissed as
time-barred. Plaintiff was directed to file an affirmation in response to the November 17, 2011
order. The Court received Plaintiff's affirmation on November 30, 2011.
Plaintiff's complaint filed on September 23,2011, arising from Defendants' alleged
failure to pay him the prevailing wage for work he performed in 1993 and 1994, is time-barred.
Plaintiff's affirmation does not present a basis for equitable tolling. Plaintiff appears to argue
that his claim should not be dismissed as time-barred because Defendants still owe him $6140.00
and the claim is, therefore, "still open." However, this Court has already dismissed Plaintiffs
complaint to the extent he seeks to relitigate state court claims or enforce a state court judgment.
Accordingly, it is:

1

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DEGREED: That this action is dismissed. The Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United
States. 369 U.S. 438. 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.
6./

7,

·'-"~~

--- --~....
Q-..<.~--

/SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge

Dated: December
2011
Brooklyn, New York

2

---------':::d.-