C. v. New York State and Local Retir

Filing 135

MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Amicus Curiae United States Department of Justice, FILED. Service date 01/05/2012 by CM/ECF. [490082] [11-2215]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: [phone]
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s):
Motion for:

11-2215

Caption [use short title]

Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement
System, Central Islip Public Library

Two-day extension of filing time

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

Two-day extension, until January 11, 2012, of time for the

United States to file supplemental brief.
Two-day extension, until February 15, 2012, of time for
the State to respond
MOVING PARTY: United States (Intervenor)
9 Plaintiff
9 Defendant
9 Appellant/Petitioner
9 Appellee/Respondent
MOVING ATTORNEY:

OPPOSING PARTY:

New York State and Local Retirement System

OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Laura R. Johnson
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Sasha Samberg-Champion

United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York
Appellate Section
Ben Franklin Station / P.O. Box 14403
120 Broadway Avenue, 25th Floor
Washington, DC 20044-4403
New York, NY 10271
[phone] / [e-mail]
[phone] / [e-mail]
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of NY - Judge Feuerstein

Please check appropriate boxes:

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has request for relief been made below?
9 Yes 9 No
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
9 Yes 9 No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
9 Yes 9 No (explain):
Opposing counsel’s position on motion:
9 Unopposed 9 Opposed 9 Don’t Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
9 Yes 9 No 9 Don’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested?

9 Yes

9 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set?

9 Yes 9 No If yes, enter date:__________________________________________________________

Signature of Moving Attorney:
s/ Sasha Samberg-Champion
1/5/12
___________________________________Date: ___________________

Has service been effected?

9 Yes

9 No [Attach proof of service]

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
Date: _____________________________________________

Form T-1080

By: ________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 11-2215
MARY JO C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CENTRAL ISLIP
PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendants-Appellees
___________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________
INTERVENOR UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR TWO-DAY EXTENSION OF
BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING STATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE
___________________________
The United States intervened in this case to defend the constitutionality of
the abrogation of state sovereign immunity accomplished by Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. It now asks for a
two-day extension of the briefing schedule this Court set for the State’s
constitutional challenge, such that the United States has until January 11, 2012, to
file a supplemental brief and the State has until February 15, 2012, to respond. In

-2support of this motion, the United States submits the following:
1. This appeal arises out of a claim by plaintiff-appellant that both
defendants– the New York State and Local Retirement System (the “State and the
”)
Central Islip Public Library (the “Library –violated her rights under Title II. The
”)
district court dismissed her complaint, finding that she had failed to state a claim
against either party. It also found that Title II does not validly abrogate the State’s
sovereign immunity, simply because of that failure to state a claim.
2. Plaintiff appealed, and the United States intervened in defense of the
constitutionality of Title II’s abrogation of sovereign immunity.1 When the State
raised new arguments on the subject in its response brief, the United States
requested permission to file a supplemental brief. This Court granted the United
States until January 9, 2012, to file that brief, and the State until February 13,
2012, to respond.
3. The workload of the Civil Rights Division makes it difficult for the
United States to meet its January 9 deadline. Accordingly, the United States asks
this Court for two additional days, until January 11, 2012. It does not anticipate
asking for further time.
4. The State consents to this relief, so long as its time to respond also is

1

The United States also filed as amicus curiae in support of plaintiff’s Title
II claim against the State. The United States does not seek to file anything further
in that capacity.

-3extended two days, until February 15, 2012.
5. Accordingly, the United States asks this Court to extend by two days its
briefing schedule for the State’s constitutional challenge to Title II of the ADA,
such that the United States has until January 11, 2012, to file a supplemental brief,
and the State has until February 15, 2012, to respond.

Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS E. PEREZ
Assistant Attorney General

s/ SASHA SAMBERG-CHAMPION
JESSICA DUNSAY SILVER
SASHA SAMBERG-CHAMPION
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Appellate Section
Ben Franklin Station
P.O. Box 14403
Washington, DC 20044-4403
[phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 5, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
INTERVENOR UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR TWO-DAY EXTENSION OF
BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING STATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I further certify
that all participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will
be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

s/ SASHA SAMBERG-CHAMPION
SASHA SAMBERG-CHAMPION
Attorney