Chavez v. Finney

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 3, 2024
Docket1:19-cv-04109
StatusUnknown

This text of Chavez v. Finney (Chavez v. Finney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chavez v. Finney, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ, Plaintiff,

y No. 19-CV-4109 (RA) SERGEANT WILLIAM FINNEY and ORDER OFFICER STEPHEN STREICHER, Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On September 3, 2024, the Court received, via email, a submission from Plaintiff labeled “09/02/2024 Labor Day Object. Due 19-cv-4109 (RA).” A copy of Plaintiffs submission is attached to this Order. The Court has not received any objections or motions in limine from Defendants. As the parties are aware, a final pretrial conference will take place in this matter on September 6, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007, in courtroom 1506. Mr. Chavez is reminded that he must attend both the final pretrial conference and the trial at the Courthouse. If he does not appear at either, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court will send a courtesy copy of this Order to Plaintiff via email. Additionally, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: | September 3, 2024 y / New York, New York AO ( Hon. Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge

To abrams_nysdchambers@nysd.uscourts.gov & Person & Person Cc Bcc & Person Subject 19-cv-4109 (RA) “Objections” Plaintiffs Claims: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) prohibits

place coercion, including: - Manipulative scheduling practices to control employees’ personal time - Coercive tactics to prevent employees from reporting workplace violations or exercising their rights Employers who engage in such practices can face: - Fines: Monetary penalties imposed by the Department of Labor or courts - Penalties: Additional monetary amounts or sanctions imposed for non-compliance - Lawsuits: Legal actions brought by employees or the government to enforce FLSA violations, potentially resulting in damages, back pay, or other remedies

' The Copyright Act of 1976 defines a nondramatic musical work as an original work of authorship that includes music and any accompanying lyrics that were not created for use in a dramatic work or motion picture. The act also includes several provisions that apply to nondramatic musical works, including: Compulsory license - A person can obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work if their primary purpose is to distribute them to the public for private use. Duplication -The duplication of a sound recording of a nondramatic musical work without the copyright owner's authorization is prohibited. Separate works - A musical work and a sound recording of that musical work are considered separate works. The copyright for a musical work covers the music and lyrics, but not a particular recording of the composition. The Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect on January 1, 1978.

Additionally, employers may also face: - Legal fees and costs associated with defending against lawsuits or investigations - Damage to their reputation and brand - Loss of employee trust and morale - Potential criminal charges in extreme cases Damages: Under New York law, a party to a contract may recover only such damages “as may reasonably be considered either arising naturally . . . from such breach . . . or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties . . . as the probable result of the Breach.” JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ, : -v.- GREGORY WYLIE VIOLIN MAKER; GREGORY WYLIE; JOHN DOE 1-9 : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : 18 Civ. 7965 (RA) (GWG) (“‘Reasonable certainty’ requires a showing of damages that is ‘not merely speculative, possible, and imaginary, but . . . such only as actually follow or may follow from the breach of the contract.’”) (quoting Tractebel Energy Mktg., Inc. v. AEP Power Mktg., Inc., 487 F.3d 89, 110 (2d Cir. 2007)). Additionally, the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied by Chavez’s allegation that “Wylie’s actions placed Chavez in a debilitated state of physical and mental 11 duress,” FAC at 6, because “absent a duty upon which liability can be based, there is no right of recovery for mental distress resulting from the breach of a contract-related duty.” Rephen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2016 WL 4051869, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2016) (citing Wehringer v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 57 N.Y.2d 757, 759 (1982); accord Franklin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co, 2011 WL 476613, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2011) (“Under New York law, in a breach of contract action, an individual generally cannot recover for emotional and mental distress . . . allegedly resulting from the breach.”). The US v. Kozminski (1988) decision has not been directly overturned. However, there have been subsequent cases and legislative developments that have expanded the understanding of coercion and exploitation. For example: 1. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 and its reauthorizations have broadened the definition of human trafficking to innclude (sic) logical manipul@tion and po.e-r[ic]o_u.

Farrell (2011) Jenkins 2. Cases like United States v. and United States v. (2017) have appli.ed the TVPA to situations involving psychological coercion. While these developments haven't explicitly overturned US v. Kozminski, they demonstrate a shift towards recognizing the harm caused by psychological manipulation and coercion. There are several Acts and laws that address psychological control, manipulation, and coercion. Here are a few examples: 1. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000: As I mentioned earlier, this Act broadens the definition of human trafficking to include psychological manipulation and coercion. addresses 2. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): This Act can domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence, all of which innvolve psychological control. Slam; bugs; mil. due; 52.50; abandonment 3. Elder Abuse Prevention Act: This Act protects elderly individuals from psychological abuse, including manipulation and coercion. UndertheElderAbuseandDependentAdultCivilProtectionAct,an"elder"istypicallydefinedas: 1.Apersonaged65orolder 2.Adependentadult,meaningsomeonewhoisbetween18and64yearsoldandhasphysicalormentallimitationsthatrestricttheirability tocarryoutnormalactivitiesorprotecttheirrights. Thisincludesindividualswhoare: -Physicallydisabled -Developmentallydisabled -Mentallyill -Frailorvulnerableduetoageordisability TheActaimstoprotecttheseindividualsfromvariousformsofabuse,including: -Physicalabuse -Emotionalabuse -Financialabuse -Neglect -Abandonment -Isolation -Deprivationofgoodsorservices Ifyouorsomeoneyouknowisexperiencingelderabuse,it'sessentialtoseekhelpfromlocalauthorities,adultprotectiveservices,orlaw enforcement. 4. Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA): This Act protects migrant workers from psychological coercion and manipulation. prohibits 5. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): This Act workplace coercion, including psychological manipulation. 6. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This Act protects individuals with disabilities from exploitation, inn precluding psychological poerquoi. Additionally, some states have enacted laws specifically addressing coercive control, such as: 1. California's Coercive Control Act <- unconfirmed 2. New York's Coercive Control Law 3. Illinois' Coercive Control Law These laws and Acts recognize the harm caused by psychological control and manipulation, and provide legal recourse for victims. Psychology 101 typically covers the fundamentals of psychology, including: 1. Introduction to psychology 2. Research methods 3. Biological psychology 4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wali v. One Source Co.
678 F. Supp. 2d 170 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Wehringer v. Standard Security Life Insurance
440 N.E.2d 1331 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chavez v. Finney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavez-v-finney-nysd-2024.