USA v. $822,694.81 in United States Currency Seized From Account No. XXXXXXXX7424 et al

Filing 129

ORDER: See attached order re 112 , 113 , 114 , 117 , 118 , 120 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , and 127 .Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/12/2018. (Greenspoon, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$822,694.81 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY SEIZED FROM ACCOUNT
NO. XXXXXXXX7424, ET AL.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:13cv545(DFM)

ORDER
The docket in this case, involving multiple parties and
filings, has become lengthy, complex, and confusing.

The

failure of the parties to comply with the Federal and local
rules of civil procedure when filing motions and other documents
has contributed to the lack of clarity.

Counsel should take

heed to follow carefully all filing requirements.

In an effort

to clarify the procedural posture of the case, the court enters
the following orders:
I.

The Weycer Firm’s Objection to Defendants’ Summary
Judgment Motion and Accompanying Rule 56(a)(2) Statement
A. On 9/28/2018, the court [111] denied defendants’ [97]
Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to
refiling.

On 10/18/2018, despite no pending motion,

intervenor Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski and Zuber (the “Weycer
Firm) filed an [113] Objection to Defendants’ [97] Motion
for Summary Judgment and accompanying [112] Rule 56(a)(2)

Statement of Facts in Opposition.

Therefore, the Weycer

Firm’s [113] Objection to Defendants’ [97] Motion for
Summary Judgment and accompanying [112] Rule 56(a)(2)
Statement of Facts are OVERRULED AS MOOT because there
was no pending motion to which to object.

B. On 10/28/2018, defendants filed a [119] Second Motion
for Summary Judgment.

The Weycer Firm’s objection to

defendants’ motion is due by no later than 12/22/2018.
The court notes that in the Weycer Firm’s earlier
opposition, the Weycer Firm’s [112] Rule 56(a)(2)
statement of facts in opposition did not comply with
Local Rule 56(a)(2), which requires a party to “include a
reproduction of each numbered paragraph in the moving
party’s Local Rule 56 (a)(1) Statement followed by a
response to each paragraph admitting or denying the fact
and/or objecting to the fact as permitted by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c).” D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(2).
(Emphasis supplied.)

When the Weycer Firm files its

objection to [119] defendants’ Second Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Weycer Firm must submit the required
statement of material facts in opposition to summary
judgment in compliance with Rule 56(a)(2).

2

II.

The Weycer Firm’s Motions for Summary Judgment

A. It appears that the Weycer Firm filed two renewed summary
judgment motions.

The Weycer Firm’s [114] Renewed Motion

for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the
subsequent filing of its [118] Motion for Summary
Judgment Renewed. The Weycer Firm’s [118] Motion for
Summary Judgment Renewed is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
REFILING by no later than 12/22/2018 because the Weycer
Firm did not file a new motion and accompanying
memorandum of law.

Rather, the Weycer Firm referred the

court to its [94] Motion for Summary Judgment which the
court already denied.

When the Weycer Firm refiles, it

shall file a new motion for summary judgment,
accompanying memorandum of law and Rule 56(a)(1)
statement of undisputed material facts.

B. Because the court has denied the Weycer Firm’s [118]
Motion for Summary Judgment Renewed without prejudice to
refiling, defendants’ [120] Memorandum in Opposition to
[118] Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED AS MOOT,
and defendants should file a new memorandum in opposition
and accompanying rule 56(a)(2) statement after the Weycer
Firm refiles its motion for summary judgment.
3

III. Deborah Stuckey’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’
Second Motion for Summary Judgment
A. On 11/16/2018, intervenor Deborah Stuckey filed a
[123] Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ [119]
Second Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by
exhibits and a Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Material
Facts.

The Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Material Facts

does not comply with Local Rule 56(a)(2), which
requires a party to “include a reproduction of each
numbered paragraph in the moving party’s Local Rule 56
(a)(1) Statement followed by a response to each
paragraph admitting or denying the fact and/or
objecting to the fact as permitted by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c).” D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(2).
(Emphasis supplied.)

Therefore, Stuckey’s [123]

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ [119] Second
Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no later than 12/22/2018.
Stuckey’s memorandum in opposition to summary judgment
must be accompanied by a statement of material facts
in opposition to summary judgment in compliance with
Rule 56(a)(2).

Defendants’ [126] Reply to Stuckey’s

[123] Response to Defendants’ [119] Second Summary
Judgment motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

4

When Stuckey

refiles her response, defendants may file a reply
within 14 days in accordance with D.Conn.L.Civ.R.
7(d).

IV.

Leon Li-Heng Lu’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Response to the Parties’ Summary Judgment Motions
A. Intervenor Leon Li-heng Lu’s [117] Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no
later than 12/22/2018 because Lu failed to file a
statement of undisputed material facts in accordance
with D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(1).

When Lu re-files his

motion, he must submit the required statement of
undisputed material facts in compliance with Rule
56(a)(1).

Because the court has denied Lu’s [117]

Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to
refiling, defendants’ [125] Memorandum in Opposition
to [117] Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED AS
MOOT, and defendants should file a new memorandum in
opposition and accompanying rule 56(a)(2) statement
after Lu refiles his motion for summary judgment.

B. On 11/16/2018, Lu filed a combined [124] Response re
[115] Second Motion for Summary Judgment, [114]
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, [118] Motion for
Summary Judgment Renewed, and [119] Second Motion for
5

Summary Judgment.

As to [115] Stuckey’s Second Motion

for Summary Judgment and [119] defendants’ Second
Motion for Summary Judgment, Lu’s response is
OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no later
than 12/22/2018 because Lu failed to file an
accompanying statement of facts in opposition to
summary judgment, in accordance with D.Conn.L.Civ.R.
56(a)(2).

When Lu re-files his memorandum in

opposition, he must submit the required statement of
facts in opposition to summary judgment in compliance
with Rule 56(a)(2).

As to the Weycer Firm’s [114]

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and [118] Motion
for Summary Judgment Renewed, Lu’s opposition is
OVERRULED AS MOOT because the court has denied those
motions without prejudice to refiling, and Lu should
file a new memorandum in opposition and accompanying
rule 56(a)(2) statement after the Weycer Firm refiles
its motion for summary judgment.

Defendants’ [127]

Reply to Lu’s [124] Response to Defendants’ [119]
Second Summary Judgment motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
When Lu refiles his response, defendants may file a
reply within 14 days in accordance with
D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 7(d).

6

Dated this 12th day of December, 2018 at Hartford,
Connecticut.
_______________/s/____________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

7