• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2 results

Ahlschlager v. Imhof

Docket 2:24-cv-08267, New York Eastern District Court (Nov. 27, 2024)
Judge Orelia E. Merchant, presiding, Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks
Civil Rights - Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
DivisionCentral Islip
FlagsCASREF, DECLINED-CONSENT, IFP, MJI
Cause42:1981 Civil Rights
Case Type446 Civil Rights - Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Tags446 Civil Rights, Americans With Disabilities Act, Other, 446 Civil Rights, Americans With Disabilities Act, Other
DeadlineA Status Conference has been scheduled for May 19, 2025 at 12:00 PM via the Court's Video Zoom.
DeadlineFollowing discussion with counsel and review of the submitted worksheet, the Court adopted a Scheduling Order which is attached at ECF No. 20 . In addition to the dates set forth below, the last date to take the first steps towards summary judgment motion practice shall be on or before September 12, 2025.
Plaintiff Nicole Ahlschlager
Defendant Commissioner John Imhof
Plaintiff Ahlschlager
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 17 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, Plaintiff's request for ...

Document Ahlschlager v. Imhof, 2:24-cv-08267, No. 17 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2024)
Motion for Preliminary InjunctionGranted
Plaintiff Nicole Ahlschlager (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages from John Imhof, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services (“SCDSS”).
“To satisfy the irreparable harm requirement, Plaintiff[] must demonstrate that absent a preliminary injunction [she] will suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent, and one that cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm.” Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 408 F.3d 112, 114 (2d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 845 (9th Cir. 2004) (public accommodation was required to modify its policies by admitting plaintiff’s service animal; in part Case 2:24-cv-08267-OEM-JMW Document 17 Filed 12/19/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: due to human-dog bond, modification was “necessary” even though plaintiff could be “accompanied by an able-bodied companion, and even though the defendant offered the assistance of specially-trained staff”); Tamara v. El Camino Hosp., 964 F. Supp.
Case 2:24-cv-08267-OEM-JMW Document 17 Filed 12/19/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: Id.3 The Appendix contemplates that a dog’s behavior, even a well-trained service dog, is not always predictable and consistent with the regulatory language, provides that a public entity must give the handler a reasonable opportunity to get the animal under control.
“[R]efusing Plaintiff’s requested accommodation if it is reasonable in favor of one the [SCDSS] prefers is akin to allowing a public entity to dictate the Case 2:24-cv-08267-OEM-JMW Document 17 Filed 12/19/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: type of services a disabled person needs in contravention of that person’s own decisions regarding [her] own life and care.” Alboniga, 87 F. Supp.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search