Kakar Kurtz et al v. Hansell et al

Filing 117

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting in part and denying in part 116 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs shall file one consolidated opposition to the defendan ts' motions to dismiss, not to exceed 60 pages. The Court grants plaintiffs an extension of time to file that response, but not to the full extent requested. Rather, plaintiffs' response to the defendants' motions to dismiss is due November 6, 2020, and defendants' replies, if any, are due December 4, 2020. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/28/2020) (cf)

LAW OFFICE OF

ATTORNEY AT LAW
MAIN OFFICE:
120 FOURTH AVENUE,
BAY SHORE • NEW YORK 11706
[phone] • FAX [phone]

http://www.rdcesq.com
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY:
1038 WEST JERICHO TPKE.
SMITHTOWN • NEW YORK 11787

September 24, 2020
(via ECF)
Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square,
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:
Case No.:

Shveta Kakar Kurtz et. al. v. David Hansell et. al.
20-CV-3401 (PAE)

Dear Judge Engelmayer:
Again, I hope this letter finds you and your staff well and in continued good spirits.
I respectfully remind the Court that this office represents the Plaintiffs in this case, which
rests before the Court being the subject of what amounts to five Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the most
recent being filed on September 23, 2020. (Docket entry #s 113 and 114).
Having had the time to review each motion and memorandum of law, it appears obvious
to me that the most logical and efficient way to present opposition is to submit two oversized
briefs not to exceed 40 pages that will present Plaintiffs’ defense to the “municipal Defendants”
and, under separate cover, the “hospital and medical professional Defendants.” By approaching
matters in this fashion, the Court is spared reading overlapping and interconnected separate
briefs that, in my humble opinion, would not only be burdensome but unduly confusing. For
example, in this 42 U.S.C. 1993 action, the issues surrounding qualified immunity are front and
center. However, in the context of certain hospital and medical Defendants, the traditional
standard at work is complicated by the “State actor status” of civilian Defendants adding an
additional wrinkle that must be dealt with. Very simply, after reading all of the submissions it
has become manifestly self-evident that what I suggest here is a much better approach than a
series of separate briefs that will, in large part, rely on each other.
1

Needless to say, for a sole practitioner, this is an enormous task. As I have previously
mentioned, I am a sole practitioner with a very heavy litigation and appellate practice. For
example, in the month of October I will orally argue a matter before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals and file two briefs in the Appellate Division, Second Department. Moreover, it appears
that the State Courts have awakened and I am suddenly inundated with Skype conferences,
motion practice, and trial work. In other words, a workload that is ordinarily extreme has become
oppressive. To that point, I have sought consent from all opposing counsel for an enlargement of
time to November 19, 2020 to submit opposition and, given the intervening Thanksgiving
holiday, December 18, 2020 for replies, if any. Importantly, all counsel have graciously
consented to my request.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs humbly and respectfully request that the prior scheduling order be
further amended to allow Plaintiffs until November 20, 2020 to submit oversized briefs not to
exceed 40 pages with replies due on December 18, 2020.
I would like to thank the Court for any consideration given to my office under what can
only be described as difficult and taxing circumstances.
Of course, should there be any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me
at the number provided hereinabove. I am,
Most Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
__________/s/_____________
ROBERT J. DEL COL, ESQ.
Cc:

All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
8

2