Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Farzan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 21, 2014

RAYMOND FARZAN, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Raymond Farzan is proceeding pro se.

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Brenda Altenburg are represented by Michelle E. Phillips and Tarek M. Maheran, Jackson Lewis LLP, One North Broadway, Fifteenth Floor, White Plains, New York.

Defendant Genesis 10 is represented by Clare Marie Sproule, Clare M. Sproule, Law Office, Wantagh, New York.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Raymond Farzan, pro se, brings this action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), Wells Fargo manager Brenda Altenburg ("Altenburg"), and Genesis10, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII"); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) ("the ADEA"); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (the "NYSHRL"); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a) (the "NYCHRL"). Plaintiff also alleges defamation under state common law against Altenburg for remarks included in a submission made on behalf of Wells Fargo to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

Now before the Court are (1) Wells Fargo and Altenburg's motion for summary judgment on all claims (Doc. No. 69); and (2) Genesis10's motion for summary judgment on all claims (Doc. No. 76). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (the "Report" or "Rep.") of the Honorable James L. Cott, Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 90), and grants Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Court presumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of this action, which are thoroughly set forth in the Report. (Rep. at 2-20.)

B. Procedural History

On February 15, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a standard-form complaint for employment discrimination against Genesis10 and several of its employees. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 21, 2012, after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC with respect to Wells Fargo, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, adding claims for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL against Wells Fargo and several of its employees. (Doc. No. 18.) In addition, Plaintiff asserted claims for defamation against individual employees. ( Id. ) On March 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all Genesis10 employees from this action (Doc. No. 7), except for Michelle Fowler, whom Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed from the action on August 7, 2012 (Doc. No. 26). By Order dated June 26, 2012, the Court referred the case to Judge Cott to oversee general pretrial matters and to issue reports and recommendations on dispositive motions. (Doc. No. 14.)

On November 20, 2012, two individual Defendants, Christine McDonald ("McDonald") and Amy Bernard ("Bernard"), filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 44.) On December 22, 2012, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed McDonald from this action. Thereafter, Judge Cott issued his Report on January 25, 2013, concluding that all of Plaintiffs claims against Bernard should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 62.) The Court adopted the Report and granted Bernard's motion to dismiss on June 11, 2013. (Doc. No. 83.)

On April 15, 2013, following the close of discovery, the three remaining Defendants - Genesis10, Wells Fargo, and Altenburg - moved for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 69 & 76.) On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motions. (Doc. No. 82.) On June 21, 2013, the Defendants filed their replies in further support of their motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 84 & 87.) Judge Cott issued his Report on December 2, 2013, concluding that Defendants' motions for summary judgment should be granted and that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed. (Doc. No. 90.) On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed his objections ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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