Floyd v. City of New York

Filing 138

OPPOSITION TO MOTION to extend time [1097777-2], on behalf of Appellant City of New York in 13-3088, FILED. Service date 11/20/2013 by CM/ECF. [1097919][138] [13-3088, 13-3461, 13-3524]

The City of New York
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007-2601

Celeste L. Koeleveld
Executive Assistant for Public Safety
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

November 20, 2013
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: Floyd v. City of New York, Dkt. No. 13-3088
Ligon, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., Dkt. No. 13-3123
Dear Ms. Wolfe:
This office represents the defendants-appellants, the City of New York and named City
employees (“the City”), in the above-referenced appeals. The City respectfully submits this
letter in opposition to the Floyd and Ligon plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to respond
to the City's motion to vacate the District Court’s Orders in Floyd and Ligon, filed on November
9, 2013. The plaintiffs do not adequately explain why they need up to several additional months
to respond to the City’s motion, which was supported by only a 20-page memorandum of law.
Indeed, the City’s motion to vacate does not rely on an exhaustive review of the record,
but cites almost exclusively the district court’s opinion and the judge's extrajudicial acts, and so
an exhaustive review of the record is not required to respond to it. Nor is it accurate to suggest,
as the Floyd plaintiffs do, that the City's motion has been weakened by the Court's November 13,
2013 Orders. On the contrary, the appearance of partiality has only increased because of the
District Judge's repeated attempts to intervene in the appellate process, uninvited and improperly,
even after the Court ruled that there was no basis for such intervention. In re Motion of District
Judge, Order dated Nov. 13, 2013, Floyd ECF # 301. In the aggregate, these efforts to intervene,
combined with the other actions that the Court has already identified, In re Reassignment of
Cases, Order dated Nov. 13, 2013, Floyd ECF # 304, are akin to the “unique and
unusually strong" circumstances that prompted this Court both to vacate and remand to another
district judge in United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764, 776 (2d Cir. 2007), based on the

appearance of partiality. See also Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, 10 F.3d 155, 164-65 (3d
Cir. 1993). Likewise, here, a disinterested observer can no longer have confidence that the
District Court's Orders were crafted by a neutral arbiter, and those Orders should accordingly be
vacated promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

Celeste L. Koeleveld
cc:

All Counsel by ECF