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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 2004

DocketDocket No. 04-2077-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 384 F.3d 838 (Culbertson v. Charosa Foundation Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.3d 838, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20114, 2004 WL 2169381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culbertson-v-charosa-foundation-corp-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack