Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 6542 (LAK).
March 10, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiff Carol Callahan, who is white, brings this action against her employer, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Ed"), and one of her subordinates at Con Ed, Aida Ortiz, who is Latina, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, claiming that the defendants discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her for complaining about this discrimination. Callahan asserts additional state law claims against both defendants under the New York State Human Rights Law (the "NYSHRL"), New York City Human Rights Law (the "NYCHRL") and New York State common law and asks that this Court exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and hear those claims as well.
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
N.Y. EXEC. L. §§ 290 et seq.
N.Y.C. AD. CODE § 8-107 et seq.
Plaintiff's allegations are summarized in the Court's prior opinion, which granted in part and denied in part motions addressed to the complaint, and need not be summarized here. Callahan v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 187 F. Supp.2d 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
After pretrial discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In a Report and Recommendation dated January 3, 2005, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended that summary judgment be granted dismissing plaintiff's Title VII, Section 1981, New York State Human Rights Law and NYCHRL claims and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's other state law claims and Ortiz's counterclaim. By order dated January 20, 2005, the Court adopted the recommendation. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration and/or relief from the ensuing judgment on the ground that the Court mistakenly acted prior to the timely receipt of plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation.
Having reviewed the file, it is evident that the Court inadvertently acted in the mistaken belief, induced by an error on the docket sheet, that the time within which plaintiff was bound to file objections had expired. Objections later were timely filed. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is vacated and both the case and the motions for summary judgment are reinstated to the calendar. Any response to plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation shall be served and filed no later than March 17, 2005.
The Court will hold a settlement conference on March 31, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 12D. Plaintiff and Ms. Ortiz are directed to attend in person. Con Edison is directed to be present in the person of an executive with plenary authority to settle this case, including the authority to transfer or negotiate the severance of either or both of the individual litigants. The Con Edison representative shall be fully informed of all matters relating to the foregoing including the benefits and pension rights of the individual litigants.
SO ORDERED.