Yu et al v. Town of Southold et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 82 Motion for Hearing; denying 82 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 82 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ; finding as moot 82 Motion to Substitute Attorney. ; granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File; finding as m oot 82 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. ; granting 84 Motion to Adjourn Conference; denying 84 Motion to Stay: The plaintiff's application dated November 6, 2012 to be relieved as counsel is denied as moot. The plaintiff is directed to file a list of trial witnesss and trial exhibits on or before November 30, 2012. The final conference previously scheduled for November 13, 2012 is rescheduled to December 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., by telephone. Defendants' counsel is directed to initiate the conference call and to have all parties on the line prior to connecting the court (631-712-5710). The call must be placed throught the teleconference operator provided by your long-distance service. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 11/9/2012. (Minerva, Deanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HUI HUI YU, CHENG KAI YU, and
CHENG KAI YU REVOCABLE TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

ORDER
CV 10-2943 (JS)(ETB)

TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
NEW YORK, SCOTT A. RUSSELL (Chief Executive),
SOUTHOLD TOWN JUSTICE COURT, WILLIAM H.
PRICE, Jr. (Chief Justice), RUDOLPH H. BRUER (Justice),
the OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY, MARTIN
FINNEGAN, Esq. (Town Attorney), LORI HULSE
[MONTEFUSCO], Esq. (Assistant Town Attorney), the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JILL M.
DOHERTY (President, Trustee), JAMES KING (President,
Trustee), the SOUTHOLD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CARLISLE COCHRAN (Chief), FRANK KRUSZESKI
(Lieutenant), DONALD DZENKOWSKI (Bay Constable),
ANDREW C. EPPLE, Jr. (Bay Constable), DAVID M. OKULA
(Police), SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD, SOUTHOLD
TOWN TAX RECEIVER and ASSESSORS, JOHN DOEs and
JANE DOEs, individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The plaintiff’s application dated November 6, 2012 to be relieved as counsel is denied
as moot since the sole remaining issue in this action is an excessive force claim in which the
plaintiff, reportedly a licensed attorney in New York, is the sole claimant. Thus, in the absence
of new counsel, plaintiff must represent herself.
The plaintiff is directed to file a list of trial witnesses and trial exhibits on or before
November 30, 2012. The Court notes that the defendant filed a pre-trial order, pursuant to
Judge Seybert’s rules, on October 18, 2012, when these final pre-trial documents were due.
The plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will expose the plaintiff’s sole

remaining cause of action to sanctions, including preclusion and dismissal. The fact that
plaintiff has not retained counsel to represent her on this sole remaining cause of action will not
be considered as justification for non-compliance. This action has been pending over twentyeight (28) months. On numerous occasions, the plaintiff was advised by the undersigned that
she should retain counsel. She declined to do so, although she has had more than an adequate
opportunity. For this reason, her last-minute request to delay the filing of a list of trial
witnesses and trial exhibits is again denied. The plaintiff, of course, is free to retain counsel at
any time.
The final conference previously scheduled for November 13, 2012 is rescheduled to
December 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m, by telephone. Defendant’s counsel is directed to initiate the
conference call and have all parties on the line before connecting the court (631-712-5710).
The call must be placed through the teleconference operator provided by your long-distance
service.
No request for adjournment will be considered unless made at least forty-eight (48)
hours before the scheduled conference. All requests should be in writing, on consent of all
parties, and contain at least two (2) adjourned dates on which all parties are available. In the
absence of consent, an explanation of counsel’s efforts to obtain agreement should be stated.
All requests for adjournments should be sent to chambers via ECF on notice to all parties.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: Central Islip, New York
November 9, 2012
/s/ E. Thomas Boyle
E. THOMAS BOYLE
United States Magistrate Judge