Defendants.
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1U.S. Uiomiv ,i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKt.u.N.Y.FEB 0 2019PROOKLYN OFFICEFEDERAL DEFENDERS OF NEW YORK,INC.,on behalf of itself and its clients detained at theMetropolitan Detention Center- Brooklyn,Plaintiff,cviassNaFEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS andWARDEN HERMAN QUAY,in his officialcapacity.BRODIE, J.GOLD, MJ.Defendants.COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFPlaintiff Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.(the "Federal Defenders"), by and throughits undersigned counsel, for its Complaint against Defendants Federal Bureau ofPrisons("BOP")and Warden Herman Quay, alleges as follows:INTRODUCTION1.There is a humanitarian crisis taking place at the main federal detention facility inthis District. The conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York("MDC"), are inhumane, violate the constitution, and are causing irreparable harm to both MDCdetainees and the Federal Defenders.2.On Sunday, January 27, 2019, there was a fire at the MDC.The fire affected thepower source for the MDC's West Building, which houses male inmates, and resulted in whatthe BOP has characterized as a "partial power outage."3.Defendants' response to the fire has been woefully inadequate. They have beenslow to acknowledge the problem and have not taken sufficient steps to obtain temporarysupplies of electricity or heat, or to repair the damage.tSt
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 24.Critically, since January 27,there has been near-total cancellation of legal andfamily visiting for male inmates at the MDC. Defendants cancelled legal visiting each daybetween January 27 and February 2, and substantially curtailed visiting on February 3.5.Further, Defendants have issued misleading statements to the public and to thecourts about the significantly deleterious conditions facing MDC inmates.6.Defendants' misstatements were made manifest when a Federal Defendersattorney was given access to the MDC—access which Defendants granted only following theissuance ofan administrative order by the Chief Judge ofthis District. That visitation revealedthat the Defendants' response to the fire has caused significant and serious deprivations oftheconstitutional rights ofthe MDC detainees.7.The Defendants' deprivation of MDC detainees' constitutional rights has causedand is causing irreparable harm to the Federal Defenders and its clients.THE PARTIES8.Plaintiff Federal Defenders ofNew York, Inc. is a New York not-for-profitcorporation with offices in Brooklyn, Central Islip, Manhattan, and White Plains, New York.Federal Defenders is dedicated to offering public defense services to indigent persons in federalcriminal cases in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.9.Defendant BOP is a component ofthe United States Department of Justice. It isthe federal agency that administers federal jail and prison facilities. It is responsible for thecustody and care of more than 180,000 inmates nationwide.10.Defendant Herman Quay is the Warden ofthe MDC in Brooklyn.
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3JURISDICTION AND VENUE11.The Court has subject matterjurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331 and 5 U.S.C.§ 702. The Federal Defenders seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.12.Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1) because a substantialpart ofthe events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within thisDistrict, the Federal Defenders reside in this District, and Defendants are officers, employees, oragencies ofthe United States acting in their official capacity.BACKGROUNDA.The MDC13.The MDC is the principal federal pre-trial detention facility in this District. It isoperated by Defendant BOP and led by Defendant Herman Quay,the warden ofthe facility.14.The vast majority ofthe more than 1,600 detainees held at the facility are beingheld prior to trial and thus are presumed innocent ofthe crimes for which they may ultimately betried.15.The MDC is located in the Sunset Park neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Itconsists oftwo buildings, the West Building, which houses male inmates, and the East Building,which houses female inmates. BOP regulations, and an Institution Supplement for MDC issuedby Defendant Quay, set forth specific and detailed rules for legal and social visitation.16.The MDC's standard practice is to allow for attorney visitation from 8:00 a.m. to8:00 p.m. seven days per week.17.MDC inmates rely heavily on electricity beyond just the basic services related toheating, ventilation, and air conditioning. For example, inmates rely on CorrLinks, the BOP's e-
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4mail system, to communicate with counsel and family, and also use electronic platforms tosubmit medical requests, prescription refills, and administrative grievances.B.The Fire at the MDC18.On January 27, 2019, a power source in the switch gear room in the WestBuilding ofthe MDC caught fire, leading to partial yet wide-ranging power outages.19.Following the fire, MDC inmates reported to attorneys at the Federal Defendersthat there was little or no heating, no or limited hot water, minimal access to electricity, and neartotal lack of access to certain medical services, telephones, televisions, computers, laundry, orcommissary. Inmates also reported that they smelled noxious fumes; some reported seeing BOPofficers wearing masks. No masks were supplied to inmates.20.Further, the BOP cancelled both legal and social visiting in the aftermath ofthe21.Legal and social visiting were cancelled entirely on January 28, January 29,fire.January 30, January 31, February 1, and February 2.22.On February 2, 2019, the BOP informed the Federal Defenders that legal visitingwould resume at MDC the next day. On February 3, however, less than four hours after legalvisiting resumed, visiting attorneys began to smell a strong chemical scent, and started coughing,when pepper spray was dispersed in the visiting room. Legal visits were then abruptly cut short,and the visiting attorneys were escorted out ofthe MDC.Public reports indicate that BOPofficials pepper sprayed individuals that had assembled in the lobby ofthe MDC.23.As a result, for each day since the fire, up to the date ofthis Complaint, the peoplehoused at MDC were prevented from meeting with the attorneys that were representing them inpending criminal proceedings.
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5C.The BOP's Stonewalling and False Statements24.During the week following the fire, attorneys at the Federal Defenders sought toengage with BOP officials regarding troubling reports they had received from people held atMDC.25.BOP officials were largely non-responsive. They refused to provide detailed oraccurate information about the conditions at MDC or the reasons that legal visitations werecancelled.26.Specifically, BOP officials frequently did not respond to certain inquiries byattorneys at the Federal Defenders, and, when they did respond, they offered explanations thatwere inconsistent with the conditions that had been described by the MDC inmates. For example,one BOP attorney represented to a Federal Defenders attorney on two separate occasions that hewas "informed that the power outage did not impact the heating in the institutions" and that "theheat is operational." As discussed below, however, the power outage following the fire had asignificant impact on the MDC's heating system.27.On January 30,2019, a BOP official informed an attorney at the FederalDefenders that legal visitation rights would resume "as soon as [the visiting room in the WestBuilding] is usable," but represented that "if visitation is not returned to normal by next week, atemporary procedure will be implemented to allow for legal visits to take place in the eastvisiting room." The BOP has never explained why that temporary procedure was not put in placeimmediately. That procedure is, in fact, routinely used for co-defendant meetings.28.On February 1,2019, Defendant Quay,the warden ofthe MDC,provided apurported update as to the conditions at the MDC to the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. Defendant Quay reported the following:
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6Inmates have not been confined to their cells and are still allowedleisure/recreational activities. There is currently no TV/Internet.Inmates still have access to Public Defender Phones which areworking. Heat has never been impacted and is monitored regularlydue to the cold weather. Heat is in the high 60s and low 70s. Hotwater has not been impacted as it is on the same system as the heat.There are no problems with meals, prisoner are still receiving hotmeals. There is no problem with medical, medications are stilldelivered twice daily. The only issue related to medication is thatthe computers are not working so you can not request medicalthrough the computers. Medical still can be requested through theirunits and also during the twice daily medical runs. The visitingroom is without power which is why there was no visitations. Thestaff has temporary wiring in place and should have attorneyvisiting up today.29.Later that day, following an order from Chief Judge Irizarry, Deirdre vonDomum,Attomey-in-Chief ofthe Federal Defenders for the Eastern District, visited the MDC.As set forth in detail in her declaration accompanying the Federal Defender's application for atemporary restraining order, filed contemporaneously herewith and incorporated by referenceherein, von Domum discovered that much of what Defendant Quay told the Southern Districtwas materially false and/or misleading. For example, the attorney at Federal Defenders witnessedthe following:a.the facility was very cold (including one unit in which cold air wasblowing from facility vents), such that BOP officers were wearingmultiple layers and scarves around their heads, yet many inmates werewearing only short-sleeved shirts and light cotton pants;b.the lights were not functioning in individual cells, leaving the cells in totaldarkness;c.inmates widely reported that they had been unable to fill medicalprescriptions or request new medical care because the medical computer
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7system was not in operation, leading to numerous instances in whichserious medical conditions were not receiving necessary treatment;d.inmates were unable to submit administrative grievances;e.inmates had not received clean clothing or bedding since the fire, forcingone inmate, for example, to sleep on bedding that was made bloody due tohis ulcerative colitis;f.large fluctuations in water temperature and potability;g.one MDC official reported that certain inmates had not been allowedoutside of their cells at all since the date ofthe fire; andh.certain inmates received only cold food for the several days following thefire.30.Despite what was witnessed by von Domum,the BOP issued a press release thefollowing day, February 2, 2019, which repeated certain ofthe materially false or misleadingstatements made by Defendant Quay. Most notably, the BOP press release represented that"medical services continue to be provided," even though numerous inmates reported notreceiving needed medical care.31.On February 3,2019,the BOP updated its press release, including three principaladditions. First, that heating to the building "was not affected by the power outage." Second, that"[m]edical staff have checked and continue to check each inmate cell-by-cell periodically andcontinue to dispense required medications and address the medical needs ofthe inmatepopulation." Third, that "[l]egal visits will be available today." Ofcourse, those first tworepresentations wholly contradict what von Domum learned and observed during her visit twodays earlier. As for the third, as noted above, limited legal visits were permitted in the moming
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8before legal visitation was abruptly cut short and the visiting attorneys were escorted out oftheMDC.D.The Harm to the Federal Defenders and Their Clients32.The events described above have significantly impacted the Federal Defenders'ability to achieve the organization's principal objectives. The Federal Defenders have beenunable to meet with or speak privately with their clients detained at the MDC,which hasimpaired client representation in several ways.33.For example, the Federal Defenders have been unable to review discovery fileswith clients who are deciding whether to go to trial, how to plead, and how to frame a sentencingstrategy. Additionally, presentence interviews with Federal Defenders' clients, as well as expertinterviews, have been cancelled, which will significantly delay these clients' access to Justice.Meeting cancellations also have lengthened Federal Defenders' clients' stays at MDC becauseclients being considered for reentry programs could not be interviewed and thus released intothose programs.34.The events described above have caused a significant drain on the FederalDefenders' resources. The Federal Defenders have been forced to spend significant time, focus,and resources in addressing the issues at the MDC and attempting to visit clients there.35.The Federal Defenders(and their clients at MDC)will be irreparably harmed ifthe above conduct is not preliminarily and permanently enjoined.CLAIMSFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Violation of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel)36.forth herein.The Federal Defenders incorporate all ofthe preceding paragraphs as if fully set
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 937.The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminalprosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right.to have the Assistance of Counsel for hisdefence." Actions that substantially interfere with the right to counsel constitute a violation ofthe Sixth Amendment.38.Defendants have cancelled nearly all legal visiting in the West Building oftheMDC since January 27 until the date ofthis Complaint. Their refusal to provide detailedinformation about these cancellations to defense counsel, as well as the dire conditions in whichMDC inmates find themselves, have only made it more difficult for inmates to access theirattorneys.39.These actions constitute substantial interference with Federal Defender clients'right to counsel, in violation ofthe Sixth Amendment.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)40.The Federal Defenders incorporate all ofthe preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.41.BOP regulations require wardens to "provide the opportunity for pretrial inmate-attorney visits on a seven-days-a-week basis." 28 C.F.R. §551.117(a).42.BOP regulations also prohibit any limitation of"the frequency of attorney visits"for all inmates, and obligate wardens to "make every effort to arrange for a visit" even when anattorney is unable to provide prior notification. 28 U.S.C. § 543.13(b),(d).43.The BOP's failure to follow its own regulations is arbitrary and capricious andcontrary to the law, and thus a violation ofthe Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10REQUEST FOR RELIEF44.WHEREFORE,Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:a.Declare that Defendants' denial of legal visiting violates the SixthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution by improperly interfering with the right to counsel;b.Declare that Defendants' denial of legal visiting arbitrarily andcapriciously fails to comply with the BOP's own regulations, in violation oftheAdministrative Procedure Act;c.Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and their officers,agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert orparticipation with them, from talcing any actions to prevent legal visiting from takingplace on a daily basis at the MDC,and from taking any action to prevent social visitingfor all inmates from occurring in accordance with the MDC's normal schedule andprocedures for such visits;d.Hold a hearing to evaluate the conditions ofconfinement that areinfnnging the constitutional rights ofinmates at the MDC and require the Defendants tosupply information about those conditions;e.Appoint a special master to inspect the MDC and undertake thefactfinding necessary to determine whether Defendants are protecting the constitutionalrights ofinmates in their custody;f.Award Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses to the extentpermitted by law; andg.Award such other and further relief as the Court determines to be Just andproper.10
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkFebruary 4, 2019Respectfully submitted.Sean HeckerJenna M. DabbsJoshua MatzDerek WikstromMatthew J. CraigBenjamin D. White {admission pending)Kaplan,Hecker & Fink LLP350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110New York, New York ecker.comCounselfor PlaintiffFederal Defenders ofNewYork, Inc.11
Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1-1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 12JS44 (Rev. 11/15)CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither r lace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided W local rules ofcourt. This form,approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEEINSTRUCTIONSON NEXT PAGE OF THISFORM.)I.(a) PLAINTIFFSFederal Defenders of New York, Inc., on behalf of Itself and its clientsdetained at the Metropolitan Detention Center - Brooklyn(b) County ofResidence of First Listed PlaintifTDEFENDANTSFederal Bureau of Prisons; Warden Herman Quay, in his officialcapacityKings, New YorkCounty of Residence of First Listed DefendantBRODiErj:IPT IN U.S. PIAINTIFFCASES) Washington, D.C.(IN U.S PIAINTIFF CASES ONLY)NOTE:IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone NumbeUKaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NYAttorneys (ifKnown)Susan Riley, Department of Justice10118GOLD, MJ.III.CITIZENSHIPOFPRINCIPALPARTIES(Placean"X"i nOneBoxforPlaintiffII. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"in One Box Only) IU.S.Goveninient(ForOiversityCasesOnly) 3 U.SGovernmentNotaParly)Citi zenofTh i sSlateDEFPTF I 1 IncorporatedorPri ncipalPlaceDEF0404ofBusi nessInTh i sState2 U.S.GovernmentDiversity 4CitizenofAnoth erStale 202 IncorporatedandPri nci palPlaceofBusi nessInAnoth erState 505Citi zenorSubjectofa 30 3 ForeignNati ona6a6(IndicateCiti zensh i pofParti esi acean"X"i nOneBoxOnly)CONTRACTTORTS 110InsurancePERSONALINJURYG 310AirplaneG 315AirplaneProductLiability 120Marine 130Mi llerActFORFElTUREffENALTVPERSONALINJURYG 365PersonalInjuryProductLiability 140Negoti ableInstrumentG367Health Care/ ISORecoveryofOverpayment G 320Assault,Libel&Ph njury0,151MedicareActG 330FederalEmployers'ProductLiabilityG 152RecoveryofDefaultedLiabilityG Veterans)G345MarineProduct 153RecoveryofOverpaymentLiabilityG350MotorVeh icleG 355MotorVeh icleG 195ContractProductLiabilityG360Oth erPersonalG 196Franch iseInjuryG ROPERTVG210LandCondemnationG 220ForeclosureG 230RentLease&EjectmentG240TortstoLandG 245TortProductLiabilityG 290AllOth erRealProperlyG 440Oth erCivilRigh tsG 441Voti ngG 442EmploymentG 443Housing/G 430Bank sandBaidiingG830PatentG450CommerceG840TrademarkG 460Deportati onG370Oth erFraudActG 371Truth i nLendingG380Oth erPersonalG 720Labor/ManagementRelationsPropertyDamageG G 740RailwayLaborActG 751Fami lyandMedicalG 861HIA(I395fD480ConsumerCreditG 862Black Lung(923)G 863DIWC/DIWW 64SSIDTideXVIExch ange890Oth erStatutoryActi ons891Agri culturalActsG 865RSI(405(g))893EnvironmentalMattersLeaveActG 790Oth erLaborLiti gati onG InformationFEDERALTAXSUITSn463AlienDetaineeG ateG 871IRS—Th i ppellateCourtH899Admi nistrati veProcedureAct/RevieworAppealofAgencyDecisionG 950Constituti onalityofStaleStatutesG 462Naturali zati onAppli cati onG 465Oth erImnugrati onF LEDActionsG 555PrisonConditionG 560CivilDetainee- 3AclG896ArbitrationIMMIGRATIONOth 'O 2019—WV.ORIGIN(Placean"X"i nOneBoxOnly) 2 RemovedfromStateCourtCorruptOrganizati onsSOCIALSECURITYConditionsofConfinementIOri ginalProceedingG410AntitrustG 820Copyri gh tsG470Rack eteerInfluencedandG446Amer.w/Disabilities G 540Mandamus&Oth erOth erG 550CivilRigh tsG448EducationG 376QuiTarn(31USC3729(a))G 400StateReapporti onment28USC157laborG530GeneralAccommodationsG 445Amer.w/Disabilitics G 535Death PenaltyEmploymentOTHERSTATUTESG375FalseClai lpraaiccrG690Oth erPERSONALPROPERTY G710FairLaborStandardsofVeteran'sBenefitsG 160Stock h olders'SuitsG 190Oth erContractBANiOMJPTCYG 625DrugRelatedSeizureG 422Appeal28USC158ofProperty21USC881 G 423Wi th drawal 4 ReinstatedorReopened5 TransferredfromAnoth erDistrict(specify) 6 MultidistrictLitigationBROOKLYNOFRCCCiteth eU.S.CivilStatuteunderwh i ch youarpfliiri g(Donotcilejuri NU.S.Const,amendVI;5U.S.C.secti on7D6(2)Bri efdescri pti onofcause:Violati onofSixth Amendmentri gh ttocounsel;failuretofollowagencyregulati onsregardingattorneyvisitati onVII.REQUESTEDINCOMPLAINT: .RELATEDCASE(S)IFANYCHECKYESonlyi fdemandedi ncomplaint:DEMAND JURYDEMAND:(Seci nstructi ORD02/04/2019FOROFnCEUSEONLYRECEIPTi tAMOUNT C,ryi7 '0y3APPLYINGIFPJUDGEMAG.JUDGEH YesXno
"3» »Case 1:19-cv-00660-MKB-SMG Document 1-1 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITYLocal Arbitration Rule 83.10 provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of 130,000,exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount ofdamages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless acertification to the contrary is filed.Case is Eligible for Arbitration I,SeanHecker counselforcompulsoryarbitrati onforth doh erebycertifyth atth eabovecapti onedcivilacti oni si neli gibleforJmonetarydamagessough tarei nexcessof 150,000,exclusiveofi nterestandcosts, thecomplaintseek si njunctiverelief,th ematteri soth erwisei neli gibleforth ILPROCEDURE7.1Identifyanyparentcorporati onandanypubliclyh eldcorporati onth atowns10% ormoreori tsstocks:PlaintiffFederalDefendersofNewYork ,Inc.h asnoparentcorporati on,andnopubli clyh eldcorporati onowns10%ormoreofitsstock .RELATEDCASESTATEMENT(SectionVIIIonth eFrontofth i sForm)Pleaseli stallcasesth le50.3.1i nSecti onVIIIonth efrontofth i sform.Rule50.3.1(a)providesth at"AdvilcaseIs"related"toanoth ercivilcaseforpurposesofth i sguideli newh en,becauseofth esimi larityoffactsandlegali ssuesorbecauseth ecasesari sefrom th esametransacti onsorevents,asubstanti alsavingofj udicialresourcesi sli k elytoresultfrom assigningboth casestoth esamej udgeandmagistratej udge."Rule50.3.1(b)providesth at*Acivilcasesh allnotbedeemed"related"toanoth erdvilcasemerelybecauseth edvilcase;(A)i nvolvesi denti callegali ssues,or(B)i nvolvesth esameparti es."Rule50.3.1(c)furth erprovidesth at"Presumpti vely,andsubjecttoth epowerofaj udgetodetermi neoth erwisepursuanttoparagraph (d),dvilcasessh allnotbedeemedtobe"related"unlessboth casesarestillpendingbeforeth ecourt."NYEDIVISIONOFBUSINESSRULE50.1fdU2)1.)Isth ecivilacti onbeingfiledi nth eEasternDistrictremovedfrom aNewYork StateCourtlocatedi nNassauorSuffolk2.)Ifyouanswered"no"above:a)Didth eeventsoromi ssi onsgivi ngrisetoth eclaim orclaims,orasubstanti alpartth ereof,occuri nNassauorSuffolkCounty? YesCounty?Q Yesizi No Nob)Didth eeventsoromi ssi onsgivi ngrisetoth eclaim orclaims,orasubstanti alpartth ereof,occuri nth eEasternDistri ct?171 Yes Noc)Ifth i si saFairDebtCollecti onPracti ceActcase,specifyth eCountyi nwh i ch th eoffendingcommunicati onwasreceived:Ifyouranswertoquesti on2(b)i s"No,"doesth edefendant(oramajorityofth edefendants,i fth erei smoreth anone)residei nNassauorSuffolk County,or,i n i nterpleaders on,doesth eclaimant(oramajorityofth eclaimants,i fth erei smoreth anone)residei nNassauorSuffolk County?MYes NofWote:Acorporati onsh allbeconsi deredaresi dentofth eCountyi nwh i ch ith asth emostsi gnificantcontacts).BARADMISSIONIam currentlyadmi ttedi nth eEasternDistri ctofNewYork andcurrentlyamemberi ngoodstandingofth ebarofth i scourt.QYes NoAreyoucurrentlyth esubjectofanydisci pli naryacti on(s)i nth i soranyoth erstateorfederalcourt?QYes (Ifyes,pleaseexplainizi NoIcertifyth eaccuracyofalli nformati onprovi dedabove.Signature:LastModified:11/27/2017
would resume at MDC the next day. On February 3, however, less than four hours after legal visiting resumed, visiting attorneys began to smell a strong chemical scent, and started coughing, when pepper spray was dispersed in the visiting room. Legal visits were then abruptly cut short, and the visiting
defendants) and defendants Ash Square Funding, LLC and Woodbridge Structured Funding, LLC (Woodbridge defendants), among others, obtained the rights to receive structured settlement payments via forged court orders. By notice of motion, Wentworth defendants move pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) for an
Arunasalam, M.D., Dr. Siva Arunasalam, M.D., a Professional Medical Corporation, High Desert Heart Institute Medical Corporation, and A & A Surgery Center, A Medical Corporation (collectively “Dr. Siva Defendants”) (“Prime Defendants” and “Dr. Siva Defendants” referre
Defendants Dorel Industries Inc., Ameriwood Industries, Inc., Dorel U.S.A., Inc., Dorel Asia Inc., and Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") to settle claims asserted by CEH and Moore against Defendants as set forth in their respective complaints entitled Center for Environmental Health v.
at 1201 S. Ocean Dr. # 2206N, Hollywood, FL 33019. T. Kastanes and G. Kastanes shall be Case 12-01297-RBR Doc 1 Filed 04/09/12 Page 2 of 192. collectively referred to herein as the "Defendants", and are included as Michigan Defendants in the Michigan case as defined hereinbelow. THE DEFENDANTS' ALTER EGOS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS .
JNL OILFIELD INSTRUMENTS, LLC, Defendants. C.A.No. 7:16-cv-282 FINAL JUDGMENT ASTO DEFENDANTS JEFFERY A. MCCOLLUM AND JNL OILFIELD INSTRUMENTS, LLC On July 27, 2016, PlaintiffSecurities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") filed an Unopposed Motion to Enter Agreed Judgment against Defendants Jeffery A. McCollum
Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II, Inc. (each a "Defendant" and together, "Defendants" or the "Musk Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit Defendants' Verified Counterclaims, Answer, and Affirmative Defenses to the
advertised promises of simple, ready to rent ‘turnkey’ properties delivering significant return on investment, creating passive income for the consumer. Defendants collectively, and through their agents, were to identify appropriate properties, and provide all of the necessary services for rehabilitation, advertisement, and upkeep of the properties. Consumers purchasing from the Defendants .
for the waiver of burdensome fines, fees, and costs for indigent criminal defendants. Moreover, such statutory and rule reforms would be consistent with Illinois common law, which suggests that Illinois judges have certain inherent authority to waive costs for indigent defendants.7 Illinois’ judges should
