Young v. Lugo et al

Filing 224

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 223 Motion for Extension of Time to File; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: 223 MOTION for Extension of Time to File; Show Cause Response due by 5/15/2024. Accordingly, the State Defendants' Request is hereby GR ANTED. Therefore, Plaintiff shall have until June 12, 2024 to serve his Opposition to the State Defendants' summary judgment motion and the State Defendants shall have until July 10, 2024 to serve their reply, if any, and file the fully-briefed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, by no later than May 15, 2024, Counsel Bedell is ordered to SHOW CAUSE by affidavit why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall have until May 22, 2024 to file a response. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/8/2024. (CV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------X
JAMIE E. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
18-CV-4216 (JS)(JMW)

-againstMARK LUGO, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:

Frederick K. Brewington, Esq.
Albert Darnell Manuel, III, Esq.
Cobia Malik Powell, Esq.
Leah Elizabeth Jackson, Esq.
Law Offices of Frederick K.
Brewington
556 Peninsula Boulevard
Hempstead, New York 11550

For Suffolk County Defendants
Alberto Acevedo and Matthew
Spilatros:

Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney
P.O. Box 6100
H. Lee Dennison Building, 5th Floor
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11788

For State Defendants Mark
Lugo, Orrison McClean, Alonzo
Payton, Joseph Rehal, Ross
Botwinick, and Catherine
Mencarelli:

Christina H. Bedell, Esq.
NYS Office of the Attorney General
Nassau Regional Office
200 Old Country Road, Suite 240
Mineola, New York 11501

For Dr. Carl Goodman:

Greg M. Mondelli, Esq.
Amy E. Bedell, Esq.
Carl A. Formicola, Esq.
Jessica D. Klotz, Esq.
Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP
1377 Motor Parkway, Suite 400
Islandia, New York 11749

SEYBERT, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendants Lugo, McLean,
Payton, Rehal, Botwinick, and Mencarelli’s (hereafter, the “State
Defendants”) request to file an untimely summary judgment motion
(hereafter, “Request”).

(See ECF No. 223.)

State Defendants’

counsel, Christina H. Bedell, Esq. (hereafter “Counsel Bedell”),
asserts the untimely motion, and any opposition and reply thereto,
should be accepted by this Court due to her “mis-calendar[ing]” of
the deadline to serve the State Defendants’ summary judgment motion
upon Plaintiff.

(See id.)

In particular, Counsel Bedell stated

she mistakenly believed the deadline to file the State Defendants’
summary judgment motion was March 29, 2024, and accordingly served
said motion upon Plaintiff on March 19, 2024. (Id.)

When she did

not receive an opposition to the State Defendants’ motion on April
12, 2024, Counsel Bedell then “reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel
via email.” (Id.)

Although Counsel Bedell does not indicate the

date of her email to Plaintiff, the Court assumes it was April 24,
2024, based upon Plaintiff’s statement that it “did not receive
notice that the State was filing a motion for summary judgment
until

April

24,

2024.”

(Id.)

Plaintiff

opposes

the

State

Defendants’ request because the April 24, 2024 notice was given
“twelve (12) days after the motion was to be fully briefed and
filed before the Court, and fifty-five (55) days after the motion
was to be served on Plaintiff.” (Id.)

The Court finds the State Defendants’ Request to be
concerning for several reasons. As an initial matter, the untimely
nature of the Request itself is disconcerting.

According to the

undersigned’s Individual Rules, requests for extensions are to be
made at least two business days prior to deadline in question.
(See JS Ind. Rule I.F.)

Therefore, this Request is more than three

weeks late. Second, the Court has afforded to the State Defendants
numerous extensions, dating back to October 2023.
2023, Jan. 12, 2024 Elec. Orders.)

(See Oct. 13,

Indeed, the State Defendants’

summary judgment motion was originally due on November 2, 2023;
however, at the State Defendants’ request1, the deadline was moved
twice, and ultimately became due February 29, 2024.

(Id.; see

also

the

ECF

Nos.

214,

215.)

Further,

upon

granting

State

Defendants’ final extension request, the Court placed the parties
“ON NOTICE” that “given the length of extensions provided to date,
the Court [was] not inclined to grant any further extensions absent
good cause shown.”
Third,

while

(Jan. 12, 2024 Elec. Order (emphasis added)).

the

Court

acknowledges

Counsel

Bedell’s

representation that she mis-calendared the deadlines established
by the Court’s January 12, 2024 Electronic Order, it notes that
this is not the first time Counsel Bedell has made an untimely
request for an extension based upon mis-calendaring.

Rather, in

The State Defendants and Defendant Goodman jointly submitted the initial
request for an extension of time. (See ECF No. 214.)
1

April 2023, the State Defendants failed to timely file their Answer
to

the

Second

“calendaring
No. 210).

Amended

and

Complaint

due

administrative

to

Counsel

oversight.”

Bedell’s

(See

ECF

Fourth, Counsel Bedell’s three-week-late Request rings

hollow since: (a) Defendant Goodman’s summary judgment motion was
subject to the same January 2024 scheduling order as the State
Defendants; (b) Defendant Goodman’s fully-briefed summary judgment
motion was filed on April 11, 2024; and (c) the State Defendants
received

Notice

of

Electronic

Filing

Goodman’s summary judgment motion.
also NEFS for ECF Nos 221 & 222.)

(“NEF”)

of

Defendant

(See NEF for ECF No. 220; see

At a minimum, that filing should

have prompted the State Defendants to act expeditiously, and not
wait until May 3, 2024 to seek relief.
Under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

(hereafter,

“Rule”) 6(b), “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified
time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on
motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because

of

excusable

(emphasis added).

neglect.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

6(b)(1)(B)

The Supreme Court has held, and the Second

Circuit recognized, that “the inquiry into whether a failure to
abide

by

a

specified

time

constraint

constitutes

‘excusable

neglect’ is ‘at bottom, an equitable one, taking account of all
relevant

circumstances

surrounding

the

party’s

omission,’

including prejudice to the other party, the reason for the delay,

its duration, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Raymond
v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 148 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1998)
(citing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates
Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 391-92 (1993)).

While the Court

finds Counsel Bedell’s non-compliance with multiple court-imposed
deadlines very concerning, such non-compliance on Counsel’s part
should not prevent this case from moving forward in the most
efficient manner possible. To be sure, Plaintiff has not indicated
that he will be prejudiced by the late filing of the State
Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Moreover, the Court does not

have any information indicating Counsel Bedell acted in bad faith.
Further,

and

importantly,

the

Court

finds

it

would

be

most

efficient to consider Defendant Goodman’s summary judgment motion
in tandem with the State Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, the State Defendants’ Request is hereby GRANTED.
Therefore, Plaintiff shall have until June 12, 2024 to serve his
Opposition to the State Defendants’ summary judgment motion and
the State Defendants shall have until July 10, 2024 to serve their
reply, if any, and file the fully-briefed summary judgment motion.
Thereafter, the parties are to ensure courtesy copies of their
respective submissions are promptly delivered to Chambers.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court further finds
consideration of sanctions is warranted in this instance.

See

generally Loria v. PJS Hyundai West, No. 21-CV-6687, 2023 WL

6986250 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2023 (“Attorneys and parties flout
scheduling orders at their peril.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)).
Accordingly, by no later than May 15, 2024, Counsel Bedell is
ordered to SHOW CAUSE by affidavit why sanctions should not be
imposed pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiff shall have until May 22, 2024 to file a

response.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: May 8, 2024
Central Islip, New York