Case Activity (5348)

1. Order | Filed: September 21, 2026 | Entered: September 21, 2026 Thomas v. Town of Lloyd et al

   Civil Rights: Other | New York Northern

   Status Report Order

   TEXT STATUS REPORT ORDER; Pursuant to the Order of the Hon. David N. Hurd, Senior USDJ parties shall file a a joint status report by Wednesday October 21, 2026 advising the Court whether a settlement conference before the assigned magistrate judge would be beneficial or if this matter should be scheduled for trial. (Status Report due by 10/21/2026). So Ordered by Senior Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/2026. (ptm)

2. Order | Filed: September 21, 2026 | Entered: September 21, 2026 Thomas v. Town of Lloyd et al

   Civil Rights: Other | New York Northern

   Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   TEXT ORDER: On July 22, 2026, this Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions of summary judgment. Dkt. No. 111 . As discussed at length in that opinion, the Court concluded that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the parties' testimony and other record evidence revealed divergent and contradictory narratives, leaving a significant number of genuine disputes over the material historical facts outstanding that would require the participation of a fact-finder to sort out. See, e.g., Decision, Dkt. No. 111 at 5152 ("[T]he testimony in the record differs considerably on whether plaintiff required handcuffing, whether he resisted it, and which law enforcement did what to him during the handcuffing process. Given these outstanding factual disputes, the Court cannot find that any particular defendant's use of force was reasonable as a matter of law."); id. at 55 ("Given the clear dispute as to what Defendants knew and/or observed at the time of Plaintiff's detention, a jury should decide what transpired between the officers and Plaintiffonly then, after those facts are founds, can the existence of probable cause (or arguable probable cause) to seize Plaintiff under MHL § 9.41 be determined."). Defendants have moved for reconsideration, renewing their arguments that they are nevertheless entitled to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Dkt. Nos. 112 , 113 . To be sure, a fact finder might ultimately resolve the necessary factual disputes in such a way that would warrant the application of qualified immunity in favor of one or more defendants on one or more remaining claims. But as plaintiff explains in opposition, defendants' arguments are begging the question: they only work if certain disputed facts are assumed in their favor. See Dkt. Nos. 116 , 117 . Of course, that is not how summary judgment works. To reiterate, genuine disputes of material fact preclude the Court from granting qualified immunity on the surviving claims. That is true despite defendants repeated-but-conclusory assertions to the contrary. Thus, upon due consideration of defendants' arguments in the reconsideration motions, the Court finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, defendants' motions for reconsideration Dkt. Nos. 112 , 113 are DENIED. The parties are directed to file a joint status report in thirty days advising the Court whether a settlement conference before the assigned magistrate judge would be beneficial or if this matter should be scheduled for trial. So Ordered by Senior Judge David N. Hurd on 9/21/2026. (ptm, )

3. 5346 additional result(s)