Culbertson v. Charosa Foundation Corp.

Second Circuit

Culbertson v. Charosa Foundation Corp.

384 F.3d 838, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20114, 2004 WL 2169381

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided September 24, 2004·No. Docket No. 04-2077-CV·Published

Opinion

Appellee Charosa Foundation moves to dismiss Appellant’s appeal as untimely and Appellant, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied because the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of entry of the February 26, 2004 order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); United States ex rel. McAllan v. City of New York, 248 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir.2001)(per curiam). Furthermore, it is Ordered that the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is Remanded because the district court relied on summary judgment cases, rather than cases pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, to dismiss the complaint, and, in any event, all the cases the district court relied upon pre-date the Supreme Court’s opinion in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 511-514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

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

Appellee Charosa Foundation moves to dismiss Appellant’s appeal as untimely and Appellant, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied because the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of entry of the February 26, 2004 order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); United States ex rel. McAllan v. City of New York, 248 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir.2001)(per curiam). Furthermore, it is Ordered that the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is Remanded because the district court relied on summary judgment cases, rather than cases pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, to dismiss the complaint, and, in any event, all the cases the district court relied upon pre-date the Supreme Court’s opinion in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 511-514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

Culbertson v. Charosa Foundation Corp., 384 F.3d 838, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20114, 2004 WL 2169381 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

384 F.3d 838 (Culbertson v. Charosa Foundation Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related