Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT Carol R. Edmead, J. Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action against defendant, New York University (NYU), for personal injuries sustained when they were sexually assaulted on defendant’s premises. Plaintiffs now move1 by order to show cause for an or*868der (1) permitting plaintiffs to file an a

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge: In this action under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, which prohibits a recipient of federal financial assistance from denying benefits to an “otherwise qualified” handicapped person solely because of his or her handicap, defendants, New York University and certain of its administrators (collectively referred to herein as NYU), appeal from an order of the Southern District o

511 F.Supp. 606 (1981) Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: John Sawhill, individually and as President of New York University; Ivan Bennett, M.D., individually and as Dean of New York University School of Medicine; Jacobus Potter, individually and as Associate Dean of New York University School of Medicine; David S. Scotch, individually and as Dean of Students of New York University School of Medicine, Defendants. 7

666 F.2d 761 2 Ed. Law Rep. 12 Jane DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: John Sawhill, individually and asPresident of New York University; Ivan Bennett, M.D.,individually and as Dean of New York University School ofMedicine; Jacobus Potter, individually and as Associate Deanof New York University School of Medicine; David S. Scotch,individually and as Dean of Students of New York U

442 F.Supp. 522 (1978) Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, John Sawhill, Individually and as President of New York University, Ivan Bennett, M. D., Individually and as Dean of New York University School of Medicine, Jacobus Potter, Individually and as Associate Dean of New York University School of Medicine, David S. Scotch, Individually and as Dean of Students of New York University School of Medicine, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY This matter is before the Court on an Ex Parte Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order [DE 2], filed by Plaintiff John Doe on January 24, 2017.1 Although the motion is titled as an “ex parte” motion, the motion was not filed under seal. The certificate of service provides that the motion was served through the e

Barrett, Circuit Judge. *656 After finding John Doe guilty of sexual violence against Jane Doe, Purdue University suspended him for an academic year and imposed conditions on his readmission. As a result of that decision, John was expelled from the Navy ROTC program, which terminated both hi

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., United States District Judge Jane Doe, a senior at Brown University, was caught cheating on a take-home exam and admitted as much in a letter to the University’s Academic Code Committee. Applying the Academic Code, Brown conducted a hearing and imposed a punishment that was harsher than Jane Doe likely expected, because this turned out to be her second incident of

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed by Defendant Brown University (“Brown”). Plaintiff John Doe (“John” or “Doe”) filed an Opposition (ECF No. 15) and Brown filed a Reply (ECF No. 17). The parties also filed subsequent letters to the Court concerning supplemental authority (ECF Nos. 18-21). After careful consideration, the Court hereby

*360 OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge: This case touches on issues that have been the subject of increasing public attention and controversy: how colleges and universities address allegations of sexual assault on campus. Plaintiff is a male college student who was suspended from Columbia University after having been found to have

MEMORANDUM OPINION Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge Before the Court for disposition is Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion for a ’Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Following a hearing on August 10-11, 2017 and upon thoughtful consideration of the parties’ arguments, this Motion will be granted in accordance with the reasoning set forth below. I. BACKGROUND

LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff, a Columbia University student who is identified by the pseudonym John Doe, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, /.), dismissing his amended complaint (“the Complaint”) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) “for failure to state a claim on

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Leonard R. Kahn, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.), dismissing Appellant’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fifth Amendment claims and denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We revie

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Leonard R. Kahn, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.), dismissing Appellant’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fifth Amendment claims and denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We revie

409 F.Supp.2d 349 (2006) William E. SLUE, Jr., Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, New York University School of Medicine, New York University, Irwin M. Freedberg, M.D., Anita P. Orlin, Reginald Odom, John E. Harney, Decision Strategies, LLC., Jeff Kern, Iris Cortez, the name is fictitious since the true name of this individual is presently unknown to Plaintiff, "JOHN DOE", and "JANE ROE", the complete names of whom are fictitious s

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant Clara Doe appeals from the August 31, 2001 oral decision and the September 6, 2001 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Denis R. Hurley, Judge), granting the renewed motion for

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant, appearing pro se, challenges numerous rulings by the district court (Sweet, J.) in a case arising from her 1988 removal as chair of the anthropology department of the City College of New York (“CCNY”), a college of the City University of New York (“CUNY”), and the 1989 dismantling of her laboratory. After nine separate opinions were issued and a six-day bench trial was held on Sank’

OPINION AND ORDER MUKASEY, District Judge. In this diversity action, Dr. Murtuza An-sari sues New York University (“NYU”), New York University College of Dentistry (the “College”), Edward Kaufman, William Greenfield, and Leo Taft for failing to provide certain educational services in connection with an orthodontics training course in which he participated. Ansari now moves under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS William J. Martinez, United States District Judge ■ Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”), declares that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on-the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected .to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financi

289 F.Supp.2d 477 (2003) Richard CHIRA Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK CITY and "John Doe" 1-10. Defendants. No. 03 CV 0840 HB. United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 31, 2003. *478 Richard Chira, Germantown, TN, Pro se. OPINION AND ORDER BAER, District Judge. Defe