On Monday, Judge Karas granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment of a Section 1983 claim by Santander against the City of Yonkers, relating to the impounding and subsequent sale of a vehicle on which Santander held a lien. In a footnote, the court noted that defendants failed to submit a 56.1 statement in support of their motion for summary judgment and that their 56.1 counterstatement had numerous deficiencies. The court declined to deny summary judgment on these grounds, but broadly discredited defendants’ denials and cautioned the parties against ignoring compliance with local rules.Continue Reading Judge Karas: Compliance with Local Rules “Not a Matter to be Taken Lightly”
Civil Procedure
Judge Liman: “Weak” Excuse Still Justified One-Day Late Opposition
By Julie Lascano on
Last week, Judge Liman issued an opinion and order noting in a footnote that, although plaintiff had filed her opposition one day late, the court would still accept the filing.
Initially, the defendant argued on reply that plaintiff’s opposition “should be disregarded” due to the delay. In response, the plaintiff “belatedly moved for leave to file a late opposition” and explained that counsel “had been traveling overseas, miscalendared the response date, and did not realize the response was late until this was pointed out by Defendant’s reply.”
Judge Liman ultimately agreed to grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late opposition:Continue Reading Judge Liman: “Weak” Excuse Still Justified One-Day Late Opposition
Judge Seibel: 56.1 Response is Not the Occasion for “Context” or “Semantic Quibbles”
By Julie Lascano on
On Monday, Judge Seibel ordered a plaintiff to re-submit an amended 56.1 statement response to comply with the Local Rules. Judge Seibel explained that the response, at 356 pages, was too long and argumentative, did not properly controvert certain of defendants’ statements, and did not include pincites when citing record evidence.
Summarizing the issues with plaintiff’s 56.1 response, Judge Seibel wrote:Continue Reading Judge Seibel: 56.1 Response is Not the Occasion for “Context” or “Semantic Quibbles”