McCormick v. Sony et al, No. 1:2012cv00270 - Document 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, Pltff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause; it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that these cases are dismissed, and pltff shall take nothing of defts; and it is further ORDERED ADJUDGED, AND DECREED , for the reasons stated in the Court's 2/26/12 Order, that: (1) pltff is permanently enjoined and restrained from filing any new action in the US District Court for the EDNY without first obtaining leave of Court; (2) the Clerk of Court is dire cted to return to pltff, without filing, any action that is received without an application seeking leave to file; (3) if the Court grants pltff leave to file a new action, the civil action shall be filed and assigned a civil docket number; and (4) i f leave to file is denied, pltff's submission shall be filed on the Court's miscellaneous docket; and it is further ORDERED, that the Court hereby certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a) (3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 2/17/2012) c/m with Appeals Package sent to Pltff. (Galeano, Sonia)

Download PDF

McCormick v. Sony et al US DISTRICT COURT - UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK * FEB 2 1 2012 , . . Doc. 4 Dn , , \ '/" 1) ')\ C/ OFFICE JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION -against- 12-CV-230 (BMC) MAGNA VOX, A Business Entity et al.; JOHN DOES 1-1000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------X JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, -against- 12-CV-266 (BMC) SANYO, A Business Entity et al.; SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a business entity et al.; JOHN DOES 1-1000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 11000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------x JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK Plaintiff, -against- 12-CV-267 (BMC) EMERSON, A Business Entity et al.; JOHN DOES 11000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------X Dockets.Justia.com -----------------------------------------------------------------X JO ANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, -against- 12-CV-268 (BMC) PANASONIC, A Business Entity eta!.; JOHN DOES 1-1000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------x JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, -against- 12-CV-269 (BMC) SAMSUNG, A Business Entity et al.; JOHN DOES 11000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS I-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, -againstSONY, A Business Entity eta!.; JOHN DOES 1-1 000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 11000; JANE DOES COMPANYS I-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X 1I-CV-270 (BMC) ------------------------------------------------------------------X JOANNA CANZONERI McCORMICK. Plaintiff, -against- 12-CV-271 (BMC) PHILIPS, A Business Entity eta!.; JOHN DOES 1-1000; JOHN DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JANE DOES 1-1000; JANE DOES COMPANYS 1-1000; JOHN DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000; and JANE DOES CORPORATIONS 1-1000 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------x The Court, having dismissed these actions as frivolous by Order dated January 26, 2012, and having ordered plaintiff to show cause, by written affirmation, within 14 days of the date of the Order why the Court should not enjoin her from filing future actions in this Court; and plaintiff having failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause; it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that these cases are dismissed, and plaintiff shall take nothing of defendants; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, for the reasons stated in the Court's February 26,2012 Order, that: (I) plaintiff is permanently enjoined and restrained from filing any new action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York without first obtaining leave of Court; (2) the Clerk of Court is directed to return to plaintiff, without filing, any action that is received without an application seeking leave to file; (3) if the Court grants plaintiff leave to file a new action, the civil action shall be filed and assigned a civil docket number; and (4) if leave to file is denied, plaintiffs submission shall be filed on the Court's miscellaneous docket; and it is further 3 ORDERED, that the Court hereby certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917 (1962). ----'"'""" ---- SO ORDERED. U.S.D.J. Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 17, 2012 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.