Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
NORTON A. EISENBERG,
No. 10 Civ. 8348 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
STEPHEN R. GOLDENBERG,
No. 10 Civ. 8349 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
GARY ALBERT,
No. 10 Civ. 8619 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
LAURENCE LEIF,
No. 10 Civ. 8887 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
EDWARD CALESA,
No. 10 Civ. 8888 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
MARY ALBANESE,
No. 11 Civ. 1251 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
AUGUST SOMMER,
No. 11 Civ. 1252 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
PAUL KAYE,
No. 11 Civ. 1370 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
HARRYPECH,
No. 11 Civ. 1448 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
ELLIOT S. KAYE,
No. 11 Civ. 1449 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
ANGELO VIOLA,
No. 11 Civ. 1450 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
LANNY ROSE,
No. 11 Civ. 1557 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
HARRIET MEISS,
No. 11 Civ. 1629 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant
-against-
Defendant.
-against-
Defendant.
RICHARD EATON,
No. 11 Civ. 2316 (LTS)(AJP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
The attention of the parties to the above-captioned matters is hereby directed to the
Court's Opinion and Order entered today in related case 09 Civ. 8697, Molchatsky v. United States.
The Opinion and Order grants Defendant's motion to dismiss the Molchatsky Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. A status conference to discuss the posture and future proceedings in the
above-captioned matters, which are currently stayed, will be held on Tuesday, June 7,2011, at
12:45 p.m.
Counsel for the parties in the above-captioned matters are directed to confer
promptly and, no later than May 31, 2011, to file with the Court in each of the above-captioned
cases a Joint Pre-Conference Statement outlining the parties' respective positions as to what further
proceedings are appropriate in each action in light of the dismissal of the Complaint in Molchatsky.
To the extent the parties, or any of them, believe that discovery or further dispositive motion
practice is warranted, the Joint Pre-Conference Statement must (a) set forth the parties' positions as
to the propriety of consolidation or coordination of these actions, including the appointment of Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel, and (b) set forth (I) a concise statement of the nature of each action and (ii) a
concise statement of each party's position as to the basis ofthis Court's jurisdiction in each ofthe
above-captioned actions, specifically identifying any factual allegations relevant to subject matter
jurisdiction that differ materially from those contained in the Molchatsky Complaint.
Chambers.
So ORDERED.