Opinion
20 Civ. 9143 (AT) 20 Civ. 8248 (AT)
12-14-2021
JIMMY EKPE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE AGING, CARYN RESNICK, SAL RULLAN, KAMLESH PATEL, JACK RIZZO, JOHN DOES and JANE DOESnames currently unknown each in his/her official and individual capacities, Defendants. MARLENA LATIF, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE AGING, CARYN RESNICK, SAL RULLAN, KAMLESH PATEL, JACK RIZZO, JOHN DOES and JANE DOESnames currently unknown each in his/her official and individual capacities, Defendants.
ORDER
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Jimmy Ekpe and Marlena Latif each bring actions against the City of New York, the Department for the Aging (“DFTA”), and individual employees of DFTA, alleging claims under, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et. seq., and parallel claims under New York state and city civil rights statutes. See generally Ekpe Am. Compl., No. 20 Civ. 9143, ECF No. 38 Latif Am. Compl. No. 20 Civ. 8248, ECF No. 39. On June 23 and 24, 2021, Ekpe and Latif filed motions seeking to allow them to intervene in each other's cases and in Toussaint v. City of New York, No. 19 Civ. 1239; or, in the alternative, to consolidate the three cases. Ekpe Mot., No. 20 Civ. 9143, ECF No. 42; Latif Mot., No. 20 Civ. 8248, ECF No. 43. 1
Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED with prejudice to renewal. The Court shall issue a memorandum opinion stating the reasons for its judgment in due course. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at No. 20 Civ. 8248, ECF No. 43, .
SO ORDERED. 2