Airday v. The City Of New York , et al

Filing 216

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than May 10, 2021, in a letter brief not to exceed 5 pages, Plaintiff must show cause why - given his argument in support of his selective enforcement claim before Judge Sweet - he has not abandoned any sel ective enforcement claim premised on his termination from the Scofflaw Program in 2012. Plaintiff should note that the Court is not ordering him to show cause why all evidence regarding his termination from the Scofflaw Program should be excluded; s uch evidence could be admissible as evidence of damages - assuming there is proof that Plaintiff's termination from the Scofflaw Program was the natural consequence of Defendants' actions and the termination, as opposed to the City's adoption of the Paylock program, caused him financial harm. Defendants must respond in aletter brief not to exceed five pages not later than May 14, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/03/2021) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
GEORGE AIRDAY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and KEITH
:
SCHWAM,
:
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 5/3/2021

14-CV-8065 (VEC)
ORDER

WHEREAS on February 1, 2021, the parties submitted a Joint Pretrial Order;
WHEREAS Plaintiff describes his equal protection, selective enforcement claim as
involving three distinct incidents, including “when the Defendants removed him from the
Scofflaw Program in January of 2012,” see Dkt. 209;
WHEREAS in opposing Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment before Judge
Sweet, Plaintiff argued specifically “that his suspension as a City Marshal in January 2012 and
his removal as a City Marshal in December 2013 violated his rights to the equal protection of the
law,” see Dkt. 82 at 25; and
WHEREAS in denying Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s selective
enforcement claim, Judge Sweet, seemingly in reliance on Plaintiff’s own description of his
claim, described Plaintiff’s selective enforcement claim by stating that “Plaintiff alleges that his
suspension as City Marshal in January 2012 and his removal in December 2013 violated his
constitutional right to equal protection . . . ,” see Dkt. 92 at 54;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than May 10, 2021, in a letter brief not to
exceed 5 pages, Plaintiff must show cause why — given his argument in support of his selective

Page 1 of 2

enforcement claim before Judge Sweet — he has not abandoned any selective enforcement claim
premised on his termination from the Scofflaw Program in 2012. Plaintiff should note that the
Court is not ordering him to show cause why all evidence regarding his termination from the
Scofflaw Program should be excluded; such evidence could be admissible as evidence of
damages — assuming there is proof that Plaintiff’s termination from the Scofflaw Program was
the natural consequence of Defendants’ actions and the termination, as opposed to the City’s
adoption of the Paylock program, caused him financial harm. Defendants must respond in a
letter brief not to exceed five pages not later than May 14, 2021.

SO ORDERED.
Date: May 3, 2021
New York, NY

____________________________
_
_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
CAPRONI
N
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2