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.

Price v. City of Troy

United States District Court, N.D. New York

June 19, 2015

MICHAEL PRICE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF TROY, et al., Defendants.

VINCENT U. UBA, ESQ., Office of Vincent U. Uba, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DONALD J. SHANLEY, ESQ., Pattison, Sampson Law Firm, Troy, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.

IAN H. SILVERMAN, ESQ., City of Troy Corporation Counsel Department of Law, Tory, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL, Magistrate Judge.

On May 16, 2012, plaintiffs Michael Price, 24 Albany Holding LLC, and Youth Empowerment Services of New York Inc. commenced this action against defendants. Dkt. No. 1. On July 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added David L. Slattery as a plaintiff. Dkt. No. 105. On July 31, 2014, defendants filed an answer with counterclaims. Dkt. No. 106.

I. Background

As previously described in an earlier Decision and Order of this Court, "[g]enerally, plaintiffs allege a number of violations of state and federal law stemming from actions by defendants in connection with plaintiffs' ownership and occupation of a building, located at 275 Fourth Street in Troy, New York." Dkt. No. 77 at 2.

On March 4, 2015, defendants' attorney filed a motion for an order dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") or, in the alternative, an order pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the FRCP compelling plaintiffs Michael Price, 24 Albany Holding LLC, and Youth Empowerment Services of New York Inc. to respond to discovery demands. Dkt. No. 124.[1] Defendants further seek to recover attorney's fees. Id . Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of counsel and memorandum of law in opposition to defendants' motion. Dkt. Nos. 133, 133-2. On May 19, 2015 defendants filed a further affidavit in support of their motion. Dkt. No. 149.

II. Procedural History

On October 10, 2012, the Court issued a Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order which required, among other things, that discovery be completed by July 31, 2013. Dkt. No. 27. On April 30, 2013, this Court issued a text order which extended the deadline for the completion of discovery until September 6, 2013. Dkt. No. 56.

By letter motion dated September 4, 2013, plaintiffs' counsel requested an extension of the discovery deadline. Dkt. No. 64. On September 5, 2013, this Court issued an Order providing that the discovery deadline would be reset pending a decision on plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment. Dkt. No. 65.

On November 1, 2013, the Court conducted a discovery conference. On November 4, 2013, the Court issued an Order directing plaintiffs to provide supplemental responses to each set of interrogatories served by defendants by December 11, 2013. Dkt. No. 73. By text order dated December 26, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for an extension to serve supplemental interrogatory responses until January 31, 2014. Dkt. No. 75.

A settlement conference was conducted on January 10, 2014. When the case did not settle, the Court issued an Order extending plaintiffs' time to serve supplemental interrogatory responses until February 28, 2014. Dkt. No. 76. That Order further provided there would be no further extensions of that deadline. Dkt. No. 76.

A conference was conducted on March 6, 2014 to address various discovery-related issues. Following that conference, the Court issued an Order which, among other things, ...


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.