Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Esther Olabopo, Pro Se v. 1199 Seiu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 15, 2011

ESTHER OLABOPO, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF
v.
1199 SEIU, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dora L. Irizarry, United States District Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Esther Olabopo initiated this action against 1199 SEIU Homecare Employees Pension Fund ("Fund") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). On March 29, 2011, the court: (1) granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's ERISA claim; and

(2) dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII claims without prejudice, and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by April 28, 2011. (Docket Entry 25.) On April 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a letter with the court alleging that her "employers": (1) miscalculated her hours of work, and have therefore delayed her retirement benefits; and (2) are responsible for the accrued interest on her college loans. (Docket Entry 26.)

Plaintiff's allegations involving the calculation and vesting of her retirement benefits, which are governed by ERISA, have already been ruled on by this court. The court found that defendant's benefit denial was properly determined, and plaintiff's ERISA claims were denied. Regarding plaintiff's "accrued interest" allegations, it appears that plaintiff is claiming this as damages resulting from the alleged Title VII violations. However, plaintiff has not properly stated a claim for a Title VII violation. As the court discussed in its previous Order, a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff's letter requesting damages falls far short of this standard. Nevertheless, the previously set deadline of April 28, 2011 to file an amended complaint remains in effect. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint by that date will result in a dismissal of her Title VII claims with prejudice. For the convenience of pro se plaintiff, instructions on how to amend a complaint are attached. 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 appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED

DORA L. IRIZARRY United States District Judge

20110415

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.