Datiz v. International Recovery Associates, Inc.
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER: The parties cross-motions for summary judgment are presently pending before the Court upon referral to United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. On July 9, 2018, counsel for the Defendant filed a letter, which made two requests. For the following reasons, both ofcounsels requests are denied in their entirety (SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details). It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/31/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LISA DATIZ,
Plaintiff,
-againstINTERNATIONAL RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, INC.
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND
ORDER
15-cv-3549 (ADS)(AKT)
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:
Sanders Law, PLLC
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
100 Garden City Plaza
Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
By:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.,
David M. Barshay, Esq., Of Counsel
The Law Office of Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
Attorney for the Defendant
380 Lexington Avenue
17th Floor
New York, NY 10168
By:
Robert L. Arleo, Esq., Of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge:
This action arises out of a letter that the Defendant International Recovery Associates, Inc.
(the “Defendant”) sent to the Plaintiff Lisa Datiz (the “Plaintiff”) to collect a debt that she owed
to John T. Mather Hospital for medical expenses. The Plaintiff alleged various violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “FDCPA”).
The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are presently pending before the Court
upon referral to United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson.
1
On July 9, 2018, counsel for the Defendant filed a letter, which made two requests. First,
counsel asked that the Court inquire as to whether any of his law clerks took any notes during the
pre-motion conference conducted on July 31, 2017 so that counsel could use any statements made
by the Court in support of his opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Second,
counsel once again asked this Court to strike the portion of its memorandum of decision and order
dated January 4, 2017 stating that “[r]ather than litigate the merits of the case, the Defendant has
sought to use any procedural vehicle under the sun to create ‘protracted and expensive litigation.’”
(Mem. of Dec. and Order dated Jan. 4, 2017 (ECF No. 44) (quoting Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd.
v. Medtronic, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 170, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1987))). For the following reasons, both of
counsel’s requests are denied.
The Court finds counsel for Defendant’s first request to be wholly improper. Counsel in
essence requests that the Court turn over its own internal documents to defense counsel. Counsel’s
request does not give any legal support for his request that the Court turn over its own documents.
The Court has never heard of such a request. In essence, a private litigant is asking the Court to
turn over its own internal documents. The Court will not disclose whether or not its law clerks
took notes during a conference. If they did, they are solely for the Court’s own purposes, and not
to be turned over to litigants for their ends. To say that the Court is surprised by this unusual
request is an understatement.
In addition, in this regard, the pre-motion conference was not conducted on the record. If
the Court expressed any opinions regarding the merits of the parties’ motions, they were made
with a view towards attempting to reach a settlement. In no way was the Court making any official
ruling regarding the parties’ motions. Indeed, the Court always takes pains to inform counsel that
they have an absolute right to make a motion for summary judgment, and the Court would never
2
chastise a party for making such a motion. The Court most certainly did not make any “judicial
merit” statements at the conference. Therefore, that request is denied.
As to the second request, the Court will not strike its statement from its January 17, 2017
order the statement that “[r]ather than litigate the merits of the case, the Defendant has sought to
use any procedural vehicle under the sun to create ‘protracted and expensive litigation.’” (Mem.
of Dec. and Order dated Jan. 4, 2016 (quoting Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
690 F. Supp. 170, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1987))). First, as the Plaintiff points out, the Court already denied
this request from the Defendant more than a year ago. The Court denied it without prejudice and
directed the Plaintiff to file a formal motion. Rather than obey the Court’s order, the Defendant
has again filed a letter motion asking that the Court strike that portion of its order.
Second, counsel has shown that the Court’s statement appears to have been correct.
Despite admonishments from both this Court and Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson,
counsel for the Defendant continues to file superfluous letter requests.
Therefore, counsel’s second request is also denied.
Accordingly, counsel for Defendant’s requests are denied in their entirety.
It is SO ORDERED:
Dated: Central Islip, New York
July 31, 2018
_/s/ Arthur D. Spatt___
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?