Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 476

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Cheryl L. Shammas dated August 14, 2015 re: Reply in further support of the City Defendants motion to strike plaintiff's reply memorandum of law in support of his motion for reconsideration. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York.(Shammas, Cheryl)

Download PDF
THe CrY oF NEWYonr ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporalion Counsel L¡W DNP¡.NTMENT IOO CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY IOOOT CHERYL SHAMMAS Senior Counsel phone: (212) 356-2406 fax: (2 I 2) 356-3509 August 14,2015 BY ECF & EMAIL lAndrei Vrabie@nvsd.uscourts.eov) Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, et a|.,10-CY-6005 (RV/S) Your Honor: I am a Senior Counsel in the office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, assigned to represent the City Defendants in the above-referenced action. I write in further support of the City Defendants' motion to strike Plaintifls Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of his Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 464), to reply to plaintifls letter of Aug*, Z, 2015 in opposition to the motion to strike.r Plaintiff states in his August 7,2015 letter that he "changed the date on his calendar one week from the new date" because the parties "consented to a one-week adjournment". This is not so. The parties agreed to extend the Reply deadline "from July l7 to July 23". See Exhibi A annexed hereto (emails exchanged among all parties dated 7ll5ll5 agreeing to the specific date of July 23'd and plaintiff expressly opposing any movement of "the other dates, including the JPTO dates") (Emphasis added).2 The July 23'd date was subsequently memorialized by letter application to the Court (Docket No. 455) and "so ordered" by Your Honor. (Docket No,458) (setting deadline to July 23'd). Docket entry No. 458 explicitly stated "Replies due by 712312015." The City Defendants, I Co-Defendants Jamaica Hospital Medical Center and Steven Mauriello joined application. 2 in the Notably, on August l3th, plaintiff sought an extension of the JPTO deadline, without consent of the parties, which application defendants intend to oppose in a separate filing to the Court next week. as well as Jamaica Hospital Medical Center and Steven Mauriello (the other parties who filed brieß opposing plaintiffls motion for reconsideration) all correctly understood that the filing deadline was July 23'd and submitted papers on that day. Thus, there was no ambiguity in the filing deadline and plaintiffs alleged understanding to the contrary is not based upon facts supported by the record. In addition, plaintiffs delayed filing also exceeded the Court's page-limit requirements by 40%, Plaintiff offers no explanation for this non-compliance with the Court's rules without seeking permission, thus providing additional grounds for his reply brief to be stricken. As already discussed in defendants' motion to strike, plaintiffs disregard of the deadline filing of an oversized brief confened an unfair advantage to plaintiff and prejudice to the and defendants, which could have been readily avoided by plaintiff requesting one more day for all parties to fîle their reply briefs. Whether by oversight or deliberate omission, plaintiff chose to proceed in disregard of the due date expressly and repeatedly stated on the docket, in court filings, and in communications between counsel. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court strike Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of his Motion for Reconsideration (DE # 464) and decline to consider any of the arguments contained therein. We thank the Court for its consideration. Respectfully submitted, /s/Cheryl Shammas Cheryl Shammas Senior Counsel Cc.: All parties (via email and ECF) 2 Exhibit A Shammas, Cheryl (Law) Nat Smith <> Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:55 PM S¡ñõìñer, Alan (Law);John Lenoir; magdalena bauza Gregory J. Radomisli; norinsberg@aol,com;;; mkoster@ckbblaw,com; brianelee@idjlaw,com; Brian Osterman;; Shammas, Cheryl (Law); Thadani, Kavin (Law) Re: Schoolcraft v. City - Monell schedule From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: All, Kicking out the date for replies on the reconsideration motions is fine with the plaintiff but we also do not want to move the other dates, including the JPTO dates. Nat on wpc! Jul 15, 20þ at3:26PM, Scheiner, Alan (Law) < wrote: Dear Counsel Unfortunately due to a respiratory illness that has taken me out of the offtce, as well as obligations in other matters this week and nexi, I need to ask that we extend the Reply deadline for all parties on the motions for reconsideration. 17 to Jul 23? Could we extend the date from J Please let me know if that is Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan Sent from my iPhone on Jul 8,2015, at2:57 PM, Gregory J. Radomisli <radomg@mcb-Iaw,corr-> wrote: We consent. On Jul 8, 201 5, at2:27 PM, Scheiner, Alan (Law) Thank you - < wrote: if the others could please confirm consent as soon as possible. Thanks, Alan From ¡ Nat Sm ith [ma iltp natþSfn Ít¡ @gma il' cqm] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:24 PM To: Scheiner, Alan (Law) Cc: nori nsberg @aol. com ; b brady@ckbblaw. com ; : Wa ;; brianelee@l'djlaw,com; Brian Osterman;; gcohen@cohenfitch,com; Shammas, Cheryl (Law); Gregory J. Radomisli; Thadani, Kavin (Law) Subject: Re: Schoolcraft v, City - Monell schedule 1

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?