Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., et al

Filing 433

ORDER denying 431 Letter Motion to Compel. The request that the Court directs Plaintiff to submit a single reply in further support of its Motion is DENIED.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 4/17/24) (yv)

4/17/24

April 17, 2024
Via ECF
Honorable Kimba M. Wood, USDJ
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 2540
New York, New York 10007
Re:

MEMO ENDORSED

Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., et al.
SDNY Case No.: 99-cv-10175-KMW
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Intent to Submit Two (2) Replies

Dear Judge Wood,
We represent Respondent Brian Roffe, Esq. (“Attorney Roffe”) with respect to Plaintiff’s
motion for contempt (Dkt. 397, et seq.) (the “Motion”) in the above referenced matter. In accordance
with Your Honor’s Individual Practice Rule 1.A, we write to respectfully apprise the Court of
Plaintiff’s intention to submit two (2) separate replies in further support of its Motion, and to note our
opposition to the same. We became aware of Plaintiff’s intent to do so after reviewing Plaintiff’s letter
motion (Dkt. 428) requesting leave to file excess pages and further inquiring with Plaintiff’s counsel
as to why consent from the undersigned was not sought prior to the filing of the letter motion. Counsel
confirmed over email of Plaintiff’s intention to file one (1) reply in response to Attorney Roffe’s
opposition, and one (1) separate reply in response to the opposition of Isa “Frank” Brija, I.O.B. Realty,
Inc., Nexhmije Nezaj, and Muharrem Memishaj.
Plaintiff’s position is that despite filing a single Motion, it is entitled to submit two (2) replies
because it received two (2) opposition briefs. Undersigned counsel is aware of no Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure, Local SDNY Rule, or provision of Your Honor’s Individual Practice Rules which
would allow a movant to submit two (2) replies in further support of a single motion in the ordinary
course. Plaintiff chose to file a single motion against all Respondents, and Attorney Roffe objects to
Plaintiff’s apparent attempt to circumvent Your Honor’s Individual Practice Rule 3.E.
Attorney Roffe respectfully requests that the Court direct Plaintiff to submit a single reply in
further support of its Motion.
We thank the Court for its attention and consideration as to this request.
Respectfully Submitted,

The request that the Court directs Plaintiff
to submit a single reply in further support
FURMAN KORNFELD & BRENNAN LLP
of its Motion is DENIED.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York York
April 17, 2024

cc:

Counsel of Record – via ECF

Benjamin M. Oxenburg

_____/s/ Kimba M. Wood_____
KIMBA M. WOOD
U.S.D.J