United States District Court, Southern District of New York
January 29, 2003
AROR ARK O'DIAH, PLAINTIFF,
NEW YORK CITY, THE PURO WATER GROUP, RICHARD EHLERS, NEW YORK STATE, NASSAU COUNTY, TSUNIS & GASPERIS, SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, VILLAGE OF FLOWER HILL, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, PA TRANSIT PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY IN PITTSBURGH, EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION, EXPERIAN, IPC INTERNATIONAL CORP., TRANS UNION, ALLIED SPECTAGUARD, CREDIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, MERCY HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH, SOUTH HILLS ENT., I.C. SYSTEMS, INC., JAE CHIL KIM REHAB., FORD MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, PIERCE HAMILTON AND STERN, NORTHERN GLEN APARTMENT HOMES, VOLKSWAGEN CREDIT INC., VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC., NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY, NASSAU DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, MERCY PROVIDENCE, NEW YORK STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD, BRAUNSTEIN AND CHASE, L.L.P., CITY OF BOSTON, U.S. FILTER INC., PIPING ROCK NATURAL WATER, AND LEONARD WEXLER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Denise Cote, District Judge
Plaintiff Aror Ark O'Diah ("O'Diah") filed, on January 13, 2003, a document entitled, "Motion to Vacate or Set Aside or Void Judgments, Orders, and Opinions Issued and Entered by Honorable Judge Denise Cote, on August 21, 2002, and Thereafter." This document is virtually identical to a document filed on September 26, 2002, which the Court addressed in an Order of October 4. It is hereby ORDERED that to the extent this filing can be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 21, 2002 Opinion and Order, it is denied as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that portions of this filing can be construed as a Motion for Default Judgment against defendant Braunstein and Chase, it is denied for lack of support. Plaintiff is free to submit a properly plead and supported Motion for Default Judgment if he so chooses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent this filing can be construed as a motion to disqualify, it is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no response to this filing is required from any defendant.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.