EBERT et al v. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 75 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion; Plaintiffs' requested alternative relief pursuant to Rule 7.l(d)(5) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 6/18/2018. (km)

RECE~VED

JUN 1 8 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AT B:3o

WILLl~~ETR~ALSH

M

LAWRENCE B. EBERT and REBECCA A.
VARES-EBERT,
Plaintiffs,

Civ. No. 15-7331

v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MAYOR
KELLY A. YAEDE (in her official and
individual capacity), JOHN DOE (I), and
JOHN DOE (II),
Defendants.
THOMPSON. U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendants'
Summary Judgment Motion. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiffs Lawrence B. Ebert and Rebecca A. VaresEbert ("Plaintiffs") seek to bar Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from this Court's
consideration because Defendants failed to include a separately numbered Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts in keeping with Local Civil Rule 56.l(a). (See Pis.' Br. at 2, ECF No.
75-1 (referring erroneously to Local Rule 65.1).) In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek a single-cycle
adjournment of Defendants' Motion, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.l(d)(5). Defendants
Township of Hamilton and Mayor Kelly A. Yaede ("Defendants") moved for summary judgment
on June 8, 2018. (ECF No. 74.) The Motion is presently returnable on July 2, 2018.
Courts in this District commonly relax the dictates of Rule 56.1 when there is no showing
of bad faith and when the omission is a mere technical violation. Here, Defendants' brief in
support of their Motion contains a "detailed fact section that points to the summary judgment
record," Scott v. Ellis, 2015 WL 1646830, at *1 n.2 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2015) (citing Park v. Sec'y
1

of U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 594 F. App'x 747, 751 (3d Cir. 2014)), which sufficiently

apprises the Court of the facts that are and are not in dispute. (See Defs.' Br. at 2-7, ECF No. 74l); see also, e.g., Adami v. Cardo Windows, Inc., 2014 WL 2586933, at *2 (D.N.J. June 10,
2014) ("[T]heir ... brief contains detailed citations to the record that make clear certain disputed
facts."); Landano v. Hudson Cty., N.J. Prosecutor's Office, 2006 WL 1374048, at *4 n.13
(D.N.J. May 18, 2006) (declining to dismiss motion for summary judgment on technical
violation of Rule 56.1, which did "not hamper the substantive analysis"). Accordingly, the Court
does not require the submission of a separate statement of facts and will review Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment as submitted. Given that the Court has relaxed the Rule 56.1
requirements on this Motion, in opposition Plaintiffs shall include in their brief their statement of
facts in narrative prose with sufficient citations to the record, as Defendants have done.
Therefore,
IT IS, on this

~

~

~ay of June, 2018,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 75) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' requested alternative relief pursuant to Rule 7.l(d)(5) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is adjourned

by one cycle to July 16, 2018, with Plaintiffs' opposition due July 2, 2018, and Defendants' reply
due July 9, 2018.

~~·
THO~N.~
ANNEE.

2

.