Morisseau v. DLA PIPER (2008)

And although “the Second Circuit has not drawn a bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship, the weight of authority supports the view that ten or twelve months is too long.” Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation omitted); but see Cronin v. St.

But “a motion for reconsideration should not be treated as a second bite at the apple for a party dissatisfied with a court’s ruling.”12 Defendants impermissibly seek in their motion “to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court’s 7 Dkt 1212 at 2 (quoting Dkt 1195 at 4). 8 Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 598 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff’d, 355 F. App’x 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks …

SO ORDERED, / Dated: May 1, 2024 // f | rt Tf 4 fn, ™ Lewis A ala United Statés DistricWIudge Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 598 (8.D.NLY. 2008), aff'd, 355 F. App’x 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Ctr., 706 F. Supp. 2d 494, 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Where the moving party has met its burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to avoid summary judgment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (holding that, at summary judgment, “unsworn e-mails are not admissible for their truth,” although they may be introduced for other…

June 20, 2019) (quoting Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 616 [S.D.N.Y. 2008], aff’d, 355 F. App’x 487 [2d Cir. 2009]).

Nor is the Court “obliged to sift through a large [] record against the possibility that it will find something to warrant denial of the motion that the non-moving party has not bothered to call to its attention.” Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Aug. 5, 2009) (“The passage of eleven months is, to say the least, at the very outer limit of the amount of time that is considered sufficient to establish causation.”); Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2 008) (“While the Second Circuit has not drawn a bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship, the weight of authority supports the view that ten or twelve months is t…

DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 598 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff'd 355 F. App’x 487 (2d Cir. 2009). discovered evidence, demonstrates clear error of law, or shows that relief is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.° Courts, moreover, “have considerable discretion in determining whether to grant ot deny a motion” under Rule 59(e).’ Plaintiff-Trustee argues that a Rule 59(e) motion “is the proper basis for bringing a request for prejudgment interest.”* Defendant Tilton argues that…

Accordingly, summary judgment is required for those claims too. (continued from previous page) (granting motion for summary judgment on NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims where “a progressive series of disciplinary actions” began “months before” plaintiff engaged in protected activity and plaintiff relied only on temporal proximity and “his own subjective belief that Defendants’ actions were retaliatory” to show causation); Dabney v. Christmas Tree Shops, 958 F.Supp.2d 439, 456 (S.D.N…

“As Judge Easterbrook has observed, ‘[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried’ in the record. . . .’ [T]he court is not obliged to sift through a large court record against the possibility that it will find something to warrant denial of the motion that the non-moving party has not bothered to call to its attention.” Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 309 F.3d 433, …

Feb. 14, 2012) (A court must ensure the "aver-ments in the movant’s Rule 56.1 Statement are supported by evidence and show an absence of a genuine issue for trial.”) (citing Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y.2008).

LEXIS 138595 , at *9-10 (citing Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y.2008)).

Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 615 (S.D.N.Y.2008), aff'd, 355 Fed.Appx.487 (2d Cir.2009). 70 .

Mar.3, 2010) (lessening of plaintiffs work responsibili *582 ties and exclusion of plaintiff from meetings and events prior to plaintiffs complaints of discrimination precluded causal connection despite temporal proximity); Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 615 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (complaints regarding plaintiff prior to plaintiffs complaint of discrimination precluded causal connection despite temporal proximity).

While the court is not required to look beyond the evidence cited in the parties’ Rule 56.1 Statements and responses, see Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (discussing Local Civ.

Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595, 618 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Nigro v. Dwyer, 438 F.Supp.2d 229, 231 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (deeming the facts in movant’s Rule 56.1 statement to be true where defendant filed affidavit in opposition and attorney’s affirmation in opposition, but failed to file Local Rule 56.1 statement).

See Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir.2003) (“If the opposing party ... fails to controvert a fact so set forth in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement, that fact will be deemed admitted.”) (citing Local Rule 56.1(c)). “[Wjhere a party against whom summary judgment is sought fails entirely to respond to the motion, the court need ensure only that the averments in the movant’s Rule 56.1 statement are supported by evidence and show an absence of a genu…

Jan. 15, 2025) (citing EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., 967 F. Supp. 2d 816, 859 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)); see also Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff'd, 355 F. App’x 487 (2d Cir. 2009) (“While general corporate knowledge is sufficient to establish an employer’s knowledge of protected activity in step one of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, it may not suffice to make out a causal connection at step three.”) Here, Plaintiff does not argue — much less offer evidenc…

See Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595 , 617 & nn. 141-42 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (“While the Second Circuit has not drawn a bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship, the weight of authority supports the view that ten or twelve months is too long.”) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 355 Fed.Appx. 487 (2d Cir.2009).

See Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 532 F.Supp.2d 595 , 621 n. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“An e-mail created within a business entity does not, for that reason alone, satisfy the business records exception of the hearsay rule.” (citing Fed.R.Evid. 803(6))).