Burton v. White Glove Placement, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, For the reasons stated above, the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket sheet to reflect that Nicole Q. Saldana's current address is 666 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Ms. Saldana is reminded that this Court ex pects her to provide the names and addresses of those Doe defts whom she is able to identity by 12/1/11. Pltff is reminded that, to enable the Clerk of Court to correctly docket all of her submissions, she must write the applicable docket number(s) o n each submission. This Court cannot grant pltff electronic access to Pacer/ECF or waive fees associated with its use. In an abundance of caution, paragraph 5, 10 and 11 of pltff's submission dated 11/9/11, entitled "Pltff's Objection to Judge Townes['] Order dated 11/4/11," are construed as requesting reconsideration pursuant to FRCP 60(b). However, reconsideration is denied. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 11/18/2011) c/m (Docket Sheet Updated to reflect Attorney Nicole Q. Saldana's current address) (Galeano, Sonia)

rJLEIJ - - - - - -

J

IN CLERKS OFFICE
US DISTRICT COURT E D.N.Y.

*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(

--0\ ''

NOV 2 1 2011

BROOKLYN

~

OFFIC~ ~ ([!:><

-----------------------------------------------------------X
ANN BURTON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-4072 (SLT) (LB)

WHITE GLOVE PLACEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------X
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
This Court is in receipt of a submission dated November 9, 2011, which is addressed to
this Court, Chief Judge Amon and the fanner Clerk of Court and entitled,"Plaintiff's Objection
to Judge Townes['] Order dated November 4, 2011." That submission consists of twelve
nwnbered paragraphs, some of which are addressed below.
First, with respect to paragraphs I, 3, and 4 this Court agrees that all documents plaintiff
files with Court should be docketed and that copies of all documents electronically docketed by
this Court or defendants should be mailed to plaintiff. Since plaintiff has filed twelve actions in
this Court over the last eleven months- some of which bear the same caption as cases filed
previously- docketing errors may occur. However, errors are more likely to occur where- as in
the case of the submission discussed herein- plaintiff neglects to write the docket number on her
submission. 1 Accordingly, it is important that each submission bear a correct docket number.
This Court cannot grant the prose plaintiff electronic access to Pacer/ECF or waive fees
associated with its use. However, to guard against the possibility that time-sensitive orders may

1Indeed,

CV-2030.

this Court notes that the instant submission was originally docketed under 11-

be delayed in docketing, chambers has been mailing plaintiff copies of all orders entered in this

In response to paragraph 7, plaintiff is advised that this Court's Individual Motion
Practices and Rules require that "[a]ny party, other than a pro se litigant, must request a premotion conference with the Court before making a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ('FRCP') 56, a motion pursuant to FRCP 12, a motion for a
change of venue, or a motion to amend a pleading pursuant to FRCP 15." See Individual Motion
Practices and Rules of Judge Sandra L. Townes, § liLA. This provision, which enables the Court
to learn the substance of certain motions before they are drafted, serves to expedite the litigation
process by weeding out meritless motions or issues which can be resolved without motion
practice. A copy of this Court's Individual Motion Practices and Rules are available at
http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rules/SLT -MLR.pdf.
With respect to paragraph 8, this Court notes that Ms. Saldana's Notice of Appearance
lists her address as 666 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017. This same address also
appears on Ms. Saldana's subsequent submissions to this Court. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court
is directed to amend the docket sheet to reflect this Third A venue address.
With respect to paragraph 12, this Court notes that its Memorandum and Order dated
November 4, 2011 (the "November 4 M&O"), directed Ms. Saldana to "advise this Court in
writing if counsel is 1) able to identify one or more of the Doe defendants based on the allegation
in plaintiff's complaint, 2) has been authorized to represent those individuals and to waive

2

F or this reason, plaintiff may be receiving more than one copy of each order: one mailed
by chambers and one mailed by the Clerk's Office.
2

service on their behalf, and 3) wishes to appear on their behalf in this action." To the extent that
Ms. Saldana is able to identifY the Doe defendants, this Court expects that she will provide their
names and addresses without further order of this Court.
Three other paragraphs suggest that plaintiff may be seeking reconsideration of this
Court's November 4 M&O. Paragraph 5 alleges that plaintiff's "Objection to MJ Orders,
Dismissals, and Precedence" was a timely objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Paragraph 10
suggests that this Court may have overlooked an argument relating to "reprisals," and paragraph
11 implies that Magistrate Judge Bloom erroneously dismissed defendants.

In keeping with its duty to construe prose submissions liberally, see, e.g., Burgos v.
Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787,790 (2d Cir. 1994), this Court will construe these paragraphs as requesting
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "The standard
for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the
moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked- matters, in
other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing cases). "[A] motion for
reconsideration is not an additional opportunity to reargue claims previously denied." United

States v. Sessa, Nos. 92-CR-351 (ARR), 97-CV-2079 (ARR), 2011 WL 867175, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 8, 2011).
These three paragraphs do not make out a valid basis for reconsideration. With respect to
paragraph 5, the docket sheet confirms what this Court previously has already determined: that
plaintiffs "Objection to MJ Orders, Dismissals, and Precedence," dated September 26,2011,
was not drafted until26 days after Judge Bloom's August 30, 2011, order was mailed to plaintiff

3

Since this Court did not construe plaintiff's submission dated September 26, 2011, as
constituting an objection to Judge Bloom's August 30,2011, order, November 4 M&O at 4, it is
irrelevant whether or not the objection was timely. However, if this Court had construed
plaintiff's submission dated September 26,2011, as an objection, that objection would have been
untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (objection due 14 days after service of order); Fed. R. Civ. p.
6(d) (adding 3 days where service is made by mail).
With respect to paragraph 11, this Court's November 4 M&O held that Magistrate Judge
Bloom was "entirely correct in noting that the employment discrimination claims against
[defendant] Friedman had been dismissed with prejudice in the prior action." November 4 M&O
at 4 (citing Burton v. White Glove Placement Inc .• No. 11-CV-1649 (SLT)(LB), slip op. at 5
(E.D.N. Y. Apr. 27, 2011 )). The November 4 M&O further held that Judge Bloom was correct in
not ordering service on the Doe defendants, because these individuals were not identified with
the particularity necessary to enable the Marshals to serve them. Id. Plaintiff's claims against
these four Doe defendants have not been dismissed.
Paragraph 10 suggests that this Court may have overlooked those allegation in the
complaint which claimed that "defendants" were engaged in "reprisals" or retaliation. This
Court did not overlook such allegations, but construed them as alleging a cause of action only
against defendant White Glove Placement, Inc. The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII ofthe
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act make it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has
exercised her statutory right to complain about conduct that she considers discriminatory. See 29

4

U.S.C. § 623(d); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a), 12203(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's retaliation claims
could not be raised against defendant Friedman or any of the Doe defendants.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket sheet to
reflect that Nicole Q. Saldana's current address is 666 Third Avenue, New York, New York
10017. Ms. Saldana is reminded that this Court expects her to provide the names and addresses
of those Doe defendants whom she is able to identifY by December 1, 2011. Plaintiff is reminded
that, to enable the Clerk of Court to correctly docket all of her submissions, she must write the
applicable docket number(s) on each submission. This Court cannot grant plaintiff electronic
access to Pacer!ECF or waive fees associated with its use.
In an abundance of caution, paragraphs 5, 10 and 11 of plaintiffs submission dated
November 9, 2011, entitled "Plaintiffs Objection to Judge Townes['] Order dated November 4,
2011 ," are construed as requesting reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However,
reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.

=----------1/sANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Dated: November 18,2011
Brooklyn, New York

5