Berrada v. Cohen et al

Filing 231

LETTER OPINION/ORDER denying as moot pltf's application for leave to file surreply papers. If plaintiffs counsel wish to file a new motion based on new grounds, they may do so consistent with the rules applicable to repetitive motion practice. But they are not permitted to file supplemental motion papers to present new grounds on motions they know the Court already has decided. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre on 9/20/17. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Chambers of
Leda Dunn Wettre
United States Magistrate Judge

Martin Luther King Federal
Building & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07101
[phone]

September 20, 2017

To:

All counsel of record
LETTER OPINION & ORDER

RE:

Berrada v. Cohen et at.
Civil Action No. 16-574 (SDW (LDW)

Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is plaintiffs September 18, 2017 letter application seeking leave
to file supplemental motion papers to two long-fully-briefed motions: (1) plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order denying in part his motion to
amend the Complaint to add a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), and (2) his motion to vacate the Court’s Order of May 30, 2017 finding that
defendants did not require Court leave to file their Answer and Counterclaims in response
to plaintiffs filing of an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff indicates that he wishes to proffer
purportedly “newly discovered evidence” in support of these motions.
Although the Court has not yet issued opinions on the motions plaintiff seeks by his
September 18, 2017 letter to supplement, the Court advised all counsel at the conclusion
of a settlement conference on September 9, 2017 that it had determined to deny both
motions and was in the process of memorializing its decisions in writing. Therefore,
plaintiffs counsel sought leave to supplement motions that they were aware are no longer
sub judice, a fact that is conspicuously omitted from their letter to the Court.’
As the motions have been decided and opinions memorializing the Court’s decisions
Also not acknowledged in plaintiffs letter is that if this Court were to allow plaintiff
to file supplemental motion papers on the motion for reconsideration, such motion papers
would constitute the third separate occasion that plaintiff has moved for leave to assert the
same FLSA retaliation claim that the Court has opined is futile.

are being prepared, as counsel were aware when they made this application, the Court
denies as moot plaintiffs application for leave to file surreply papers. If plaintiffs
counsel wish to file a new motion based on new grounds, they may do so consistent with
the rules applicable to repetitive motion practice. But they are not permitted to file
supplemental motion papers to present new grounds on motions they know the Court
already has decided.
SO ORDERED.

Leda Dunn Wettre
United States Magistrate Judge

2