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”
Rule 56.1
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”
Judge McMahon Decries “Silly and Pointless” Effort to Strike Rule 56.1 Statement
By Charles Michael on
In an opinion Monday, Judge McMahon denied a motion by Blackberry and certain former executives for summary judgement in a securities class action. In the same ruling, she denied Blackberry’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 statement, which allegedly contained improper legal arguments instead of factual responses. Judge McMahon criticized the motion as “pointless”…