SMITH et al v. DAVIDOV et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 54 , 59 Plaintiff's Motion to Secure a Fair Trial and Motion to Include Documents in Support without prejudice. Signed by Judge Georgette Castner on 8/28/2024. (amv,n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FELICIA SMITH and REINARD SMITH,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 22-04998 (GC) (JBD)
v.
MIKHAIL DAVIDOV, et al.,

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiffs Felicia and Reinard
Smith’s “Emergency Motion to Secure a Fair Trial” and their subsequent “Motion to Include
Documents in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Relief.” (ECF Nos. 54 & 59.) For the
reasons set forth below, and other good cause shown, the motions are DENIED.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Defendants under the Truth in Lending Act and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase in August 2021 of a 2010
Mercedes-Benz GL450 4MATIC from AutoShow, LLC. (See generally ECF No. 1.)
In January 2024, following a telephonic status conference, the Court extended the fact
discovery deadline until March 15, 2024. (ECF No. 36.) Then, on May 1, 2024, the Court issued
a Text Order scheduling a video settlement conference with the parties for May 30, 2024. (ECF
No. 40.) On May 8, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 41.)
That motion is now fully briefed.
On May 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed Defendants’ “answers to [Plaintiffs’] interrogatories for
the Court’s convenience.” (ECF No. 44 at 1.) Appended to the filing was a document titled

“Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants Interrogatory Answers and Their Motion to Strike
Defendants’ False Defenses.” (Id. at 9-15.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to “direct Defendants to
adequately and responsibly answer the interrogatories with which [they] take issue.” (Id. at 13.)
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to “strike . . . [certain] defenses being used by . . . Defendants.” (Id.
at 15.) On July 25, 2024, the Court entered a Text Order noting that the motion had inadvertently
not been docketed as such. (ECF No. 52.) The Court directed the Clerk to set the motion as
returnable on August 19, 2024, and the Court issued a briefing schedule on the motion. (Id.) That
motion is now fully briefed.
On June 7, 2024, Defendants moved to extend discovery for the purpose of amending their
responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and to produce an audio recording and transcript of a
telephonic call. (ECF No. 45.) The motion was granted by the Court on August 16, 2024. (ECF
No. 62.)
On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an “Emergency Motion to Secure a Fair Trial.” (ECF
No. 54.) In the motion, Plaintiffs claim that because their May 29, 2024 motion was not initially
docketed as a motion, they “have been unfairly disadvantaged,” and they demand “an immediate
emergency hearing.” (Id. at 5.) In response, Defendants argue that “there is no ‘emergency’” and
that Plaintiffs “are simply trying to ‘jump the line’ and have their case handled before other cases.”
(ECF No. 55 at 1.) Two weeks later, on August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their “Motion to Include
Documents in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Relief.” (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiffs ask
the Court to consider certain documents—namely, various Carfax reports, deposition testimony,
and a text message—when deciding their request for emergency relief. (Id. at 2-3.) In response,
Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs are attempting to create an issue” by “claiming that . . . defendants

2