LUXAMA et al v. IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC. et al

Filing 316

OPINION & ORDER that Defendant's 295 and 303 Motions to Strike are GRANTED, etc.; Plaintiff's 310 and 314 cross-motions to supplement and/or amend their statement of material facts and responsive statement of material facts are DENIED; The parties shall file their respective summary judgment replies within ten (10) days of this Order. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 7/6/2020. (ams, )

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VAUDRAL LUXAMA, CHANDLER
LUXEUS, JAVIER R. GARCIA, FREDO
BONHOMME, SANTOS MALDONADO,
CHANEL FONTIN, each individually and as
class representatives,

Civil Action No. 11-2224
OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant’s motions to strike, D.E. 295,
303, and Plaintiffs’ cross-motions to supplement and/or amend, D.E. 310, 314. The Court
reviewed the parties’ submissions1 and considered the motions without oral argument pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the following reasons,
Defendant’s motions to strike, D.E. 295, 303, are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ cross-motions to
supplement and/or amend, D.E. 310, 314, are DENIED.

1

Defendant’s brief in support of its first motion to strike is referred to as “Def.’s First Br.” (D.E.
295); Plaintiffs’ opposition is referred to as “Pl.’s First Opp.” (D.E. 309); and Defendant’s reply
is referred to as “Def.’s First Reply” (D.E. 312). Defendant’s brief in support of its second motion
to strike is referred to as “Def.’s Second Br.” (D.E. 303); Plaintiffs’ opposition is referred to as
“Pl.’s Second Opp.” (D.E. 314); and Defendant’s reply is referred to as “Def.’s Second Reply”
(D.E. 315).

I.

BACKGROUND
For purposes of the pending motions, the Court need not retrace this matter’s full factual

and procedural history. On January 29, 2019, Defendant submitted its letter requesting leave to
file for summary judgment, accompanied with its statement of material facts. D.E. 236. Plaintiffs
filed their letter in opposition, D.E. 239, later submitting their responsive statement of material
facts, D.E. 242. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted their own letter requesting leave to file for
summary judgment, accompanied with their statement of material facts. D.E. 255. Defendant
filed in opposition its responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 270.2 The Court reviewed the
parties’ submissions, and on June 12, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ requests for leave to file
their respective summary judgment motions. D.E. 273, 274.
On January 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment, D.E. 281, to
which Defendant filed opposition, D.E. 296. On February 2, 2020, Defendant filed its motion for
summary judgment, D.E. 282, to which Plaintiffs filed opposition, D.E. 297. The Court then
adjourned the parties’ respective replies in support of their motions pending the Court’s decision
on the motions to strike. D.E. 308. The current dispute concerns certain factual statements and/or
evidentiary support upon which Plaintiffs rely in support of their motion for summary judgment,
D.E. 281, and in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, D.E. 297.
II.

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs summary judgments. Local Civil Rule 56.1

does the same. The local rule provides in part as follows:

2

Defendant only filed its responsive statement of material facts but did not include a letter in
opposition, D.E. 270.
2

(a) Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute
On motions for summary judgment, the movant shall furnish a
statement which sets forth material facts as to which there does not
exist a genuine issue, in separately numbered paragraphs citing to
the affidavits and other documents submitted in support of the
motion. A motion for summary judgment unaccompanied by a
statement of material facts not in dispute shall be dismissed. The
opponent of summary judgment shall furnish, with its opposition
papers, a responsive statement of material facts, addressing each
paragraph of the movant’s statement, indicating agreement or
disagreement and, if not agreed, stating each material fact in dispute
and citing to the affidavits and other documents submitted in
connection with the motion; any material fact not disputed shall be
deemed undisputed for purposes of the summary judgment motion.
L. Civ. R. 56.1(a) (emphases added).
The Court’s summary judgment procedure, listed under the Court’s judicial preferences,
provides in relevant part as follows:
When seeking leave [to file for summary judgment], the moving
party must first submit a letter, no longer than three (3) pages,
summarizing the party’s substantive argument. The party must also
submit the party’s statement of material facts not in dispute pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 56.1. Within two weeks of the moving party’s
filing, the party opposing the motion must also submit a letter, no
longer than three (3) pages, summarizing the party’s substantive
argument in opposition. The party opposing the motion must also
submit its responsive statement of material facts and supplemental
statement of disputed material facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule
56.1. . . . In addition, when submitting the statements of facts
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, the parties shall not attach the
underlying, supporting evidence. . . . If leave is granted, the parties
are bound by their respective statements of facts pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 56.1 that were submitted with the request seeking leave
to file the motion.
Judicial Preferences of the Honorable John Michael Vazquez, U.S. District Court, District of New
Jersey, https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/content/john-michael-vazquez (emphases added).
Moreover, the Court’s prior order granting Plaintiffs leave to file their motion for summary
judgment, D.E. 273, explicitly stated as follows: (1) “Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is
3

limited to the issues raised in their letter,” and “[i]f Plaintiffs raise additional issues, they will be
disregarded by the Court”; and (2) “the parties shall refer to, and not refile . . . Plaintiffs’ statement
of undisputed material facts, D.E. 255.” See D.E. 273 (emphasis added). Similarly, pursuant to
the Court’s prior order granting Defendant leave to file its motion for summary judgment, D.E.
274, the Court ordered that “the parties shall refer to, and not refile . . . Plaintiffs’ response to
Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts, D.E. 242.” See D.E. 274 (emphasis added).
Taking the Court’s judicial preferences together with the Court’s two orders granting the
parties leave to file, it is clear that (1) Plaintiffs are bound by the statement of material facts that
they submitted in connection with their own request for leave to file for summary judgment (D.E.
255); (2) Plaintiffs are bound by the responsive statement of material facts that they submitted in
opposition to Defendant’s request for leave to file for summary judgment (D.E. 242); and (3)
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised in its initial letter seeking
leave, D.E. 255.
With this framework in mind, the Court turns to the motions currently pending in this
matter: (1) Defendant’s first motion to strike, D.E 295; (2) Defendant’s second motion to strike,
D.E. 303; and (3) Plaintiffs’ cross-motions to supplement and/or amend their statements of
material facts, D.E. 310, 314. The Court addresses each motion in turn.
A. Defendant’s First Motion to Strike
Defendant’s first motion seeks to strike the following: (1) Plaintiffs’ new “supplemental
undisputed facts,” D.E. 281-4, ¶¶ 58-95; (2) the certification of Lauren X. Topelsohn, D.E. 281-2;
and (3) the certification of Steven I. Adler and “all exhibits [attached] thereto,” D.E. 281-1, Exs.
1-21. See Def.’s First Br. at 11.

4

With respect to Plaintiffs’ new statement of “supplemental disputed facts,” D.E. 281-4, ¶¶
58-95, such facts were not included in Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts, D.E. 255.
Plaintiffs cannot add and rely on factual statements or evidentiary support that was not included in
their original statement of material facts. Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiffs’ statement of
“supplemental disputed facts,” D.E. 281-4, to the extent that this new submission differs from
Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts. The Court only considers Plaintiffs’ original
statement of material facts, D.E. 255.
With respect to the certification of Lauren X. Topelsohn, D.E. 281-2, the certification
includes thirty-one (31) numbered paragraphs related to Defendant’s “new lease.” The Court
strikes the certification in its entirety. To the extent that the certification can be construed as
positing new “statements of fact,”3 the Court strikes the certification insofar as this new submission
contains factual statements that were not included in Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts,
D.E. 255, or responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 242. Moreover, the certification also
appears to address issues related to Defendant’s “new lease” – but the issue of Defendant’s “new
lease” was never raised by Plaintiffs in their letter seeking leave to file for summary judgment,
D.E. 255. And as the Court made clear in its prior order granting Plaintiffs leave to file for
summary judgment, “Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised in
their letter” and “[i]f Plaintiffs raise additional issues, they will be disregarded by the Court.” See
D.E. 273. Plaintiffs may not raise new issues that were not originally raised in their letter seeking

3

The Court notes that many of the numbered paragraphs in Ms. Topelsohn’s certification do not
contain accompanying citations to the record as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and L. Civ. R.
56.1(a). Moreover, Ms. Topelsohn’s certification improperly contains numerous legal arguments
and conclusions of law. See Teubert v. SRA Intl., Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 569, 575 (D.N.J. 2016)
(“[Local Civil] Rule 56.1 mandates that the parties’ statements of material fact ‘shall not
contain legal argument or conclusions of law.’”) (quoting L. Civ. R. 56.1(a)).
5

leave to file. In sum, the Court strikes the certification of Lauren X. Topelsohn, D.E. 281-2, and
will not consider this submission in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
With respect to the certification of Steven Adler and the exhibits attached thereto, D.E.
281-1, the certification includes sixty-nine (69) numbered paragraphs addressing various issues
involving, inter alia, Defendant’s “new lease,” Defendant’s use of trip sheets, and Defendant’s
alleged overcharging for workers’ compensation insurance. Also attached to the certification are
twenty-one (21) exhibits as evidentiary support. To the extent that the certification can be
construed as positing new statements of fact, the Court strikes the certification insofar as this new
submission contains factual statements that were not included in Plaintiffs’ original statement of
material facts, D.E. 255, or responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 242. As for the exhibits
attached to the certification, the Court strikes those exhibits not previously cited as evidentiary
support in Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts, D.E. 255, or responsive statement of
material facts, D.E. 242. In other words, any exhibits that were not cited as evidentiary support in
Plaintiffs’ statement of material facts or responsive statement of material facts, will not be
considered by the Court in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.4
In sum, the Court grants Defendant’s first motion to strike to the extent discussed above.
The Court will not consider any factual statements or evidentiary support that was not included in
Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts or responsive statement of material facts.

4

Defendant broadly characterizes “all” of the exhibits attached to the Alder certification as “new
exhibits” that should be stricken. Def.’s First Br. at 12. Yet, the Court notes that at least some of
the exhibits do not appear to be “new exhibits.” For example, Ex. 11 of the Alder certification
appears to be the same evidentiary support cited to in Plaintiffs’ original statement of material
facts. Compare, e.g., D.E. 255, ¶ 5, n.2, with D.E. 281-1, Ex. 11. The Court will only consider
evidentiary support cited in Plaintiffs’ statement of material facts, D.E. 255, and responsive
statement of material facts, D.E. 242.
6

B. Defendant’s Second Motion to Strike
Defendant’s second motion seeks to strike the following: (1) Plaintiff’s new responsive
statement of material facts, D.E. 297-1; (2) the new certifications of Vaudral Luxama, Chanel
Fontin, and Javier Garcia, D.E. 297-4, 297-5, 297-6; and (3) Plaintiffs’ “consolidation of parties’
submissions,” D.E. 297-3, Ex. M. See D.E. 303. Because Plaintiffs do not object to Defendant’s
motion insofar as it seeks to strike Exhibit M, Pl.’s Second Opp. at 1 n.2, the Court strikes the
exhibit. The Court next addresses Plaintiffs’ new responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 2971, and the new certifications of Luxama, Fontin, and Garcia, D.E. 297-4, 297-5, 297-6.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ new responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 297-1, the Court
strikes this submission to the extent that it differs from Plaintiffs’ original responsive statement of
material facts, D.E. 242. The Court will only consider Plaintiffs’ original responsive statement of
material facts and the accompanying evidentiary support cited therein.
With respect to the new certifications of Luxama, Fontin, and Garcia, D.E. 297-4, 297-5,
297-6, such certifications were signed by their respective affiants on May 11, 2020 – well over a
year after Plaintiffs first submitted their responsive statement of material facts. Plaintiffs cannot
introduce and rely upon new evidentiary support that was not included in their original responsive
statement of material facts. Accordingly, the Court strikes the new certifications of Luxama,
Fontin, and Garcia, D.E. 297-4, 297-5, 297-6.5
In sum, the Court grants Defendant’s second motion to strike to the extent discussed above.
As previously noted, the Court will not consider any factual statements or evidentiary support that

5

Defendant makes various other arguments as to why the Court should strike the new
certifications. Def.’s Second Br. at 7-10. The Court does not reach these assertions in light of its
ruling that the certifications should be struck. To the extent Defendant contends that Plaintiffs
improperly assert a new claim for escrow interest, id. at 9-10, the Court will address this issue in
its summary judgment opinion.
7

was not included in Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts or responsive statement of
material facts.
C. Plaintiffs’ Cross-motions to Supplement and/or Amend
Lastly, Plaintiffs cross-move for permission to supplement and/or amend their statement
of material facts, D.E. 255, and responsive statement of material facts, 242. Specifically, Plaintiffs
seek permission to substitute their new statement of material facts, D.E. 281-4, in place of their
original statement of material facts, D.E. 255. See D.E. 310. Similarly, Plaintiffs also seek
permission to substitute their new responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 297-1, in place of
their original responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 242. See D.E. 314. Yet, Plaintiffs fail
to show good cause (or provide any justifiable reason) as to why they failed to include such
information before the Court granted leave to file for summary judgment. As a result, and in
accordance with the Court’s summary judgment procedure and prior orders, Plaintiffs’ crossmotions to amend and/or supplement are denied.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 6th day of July, 2020,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motions to strike, D.E. 295, 303, are GRANTED. The Court

will disregard any statements of fact and/or evidentiary support relied upon by Plaintiffs that was
not included in either (1) Plaintiffs’ original statement of material facts, D.E. 255, or (2) Plaintiffs’
responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 242; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ cross-motions to supplement and/or amend their statement of
material facts and responsive statement of material facts, D.E. 310, 314, are DENIED; and it is
further

8

ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court’s prior order dated June 1, 2020, D.E 308, the
parties shall submit their respective summary judgment replies within ten (10) days of this Order.

_______
__________________________
__ ___
_
__________________________
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
hn
hn
U.S.D J.
U.S.D.J.

9