Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 480

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan Scheiner dated August 18, 2015 re: Opposition to Plaintiff's Request to Modify the Deadline of the filing of the JPTO. 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
ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007 ALAN SCHEINER Senior Counsel phone: (212) 356-2344 fax: (212) 356-3509 ascheine@law.nyc.gov August 18, 2015 BY ECF & EMAIL (Andrei_Vrabie@nysd.uscourts.gov) 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 al., 10-CV-6005 (RWS) Your Honor: As counsel for the City Defendants in the above-referenced matter, we write to briefly respond to plaintiff’s August 18th letter in further support of his motion for an extension of the JPTO deadline. The City Defendants decline to respond to the various misstatements of fact in plaintiff’s letter and write only to highlight that plaintiff now seeks additional relief, namely an extension of the JPTO deadline to August 24th instead of August 21st, the date he initially requested. Plaintiff’s attempt to again move the goal post for the JPTO deadline, without explanation, prejudices defendants and further evidences his disregard for procedural regularity, lack of readiness for trial, and unwillingness to diligently prosecute his own case. Further, as previously stated by the City Defendants in the August 17th letter opposing the extension, the City defendants’ lead counsel will be on previously scheduled vacations after August 21st, and therefore will be unable to participate in submission of a JPTO on August 24th. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in defendants’ August 17th submission, plaintiff’s application should respectfully be denied. We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/Alan Scheiner Alan Scheiner Cheryl Shammas Senior Counsel Cc.: All parties (via email and ECF)

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?