Massey v. City of New York et al

Filing 71

ORDER: On April 8, 2022, counsel for Defendants informed the Court that Plaintiff "has agreed in principle to voluntarily dismiss the instant matter, with prejudice" and requested that the Court hold Defendants' deadline to file t heir motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in abeyance, pending execution of the contemplated, proposed stipulation of dismissal. (Docket entry no. 68.) The Court extended the briefing deadlines for Defendants' mot ion to dismiss sine die and directed Defendants to file a status update by May 6, 2022. (Docket entry no. 69.) On May 6, 2022, Defendants filed their status report (docket entry no. 70), noting that they were informed by the Department of Correcti on that Plaintiff "was released from custody on April 25, 2022[;]" that they "had not received the signed Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal from [P]laintiff[;]" and that they "are unaware of any way to contact [P]lainti ff at this time to further discuss this matter." (Id.) Plaintiff is responsible for providing up-to-date contact information to the Court. Therefore, the Court hereby directs Plaintiff to provide the Court with his updated contact informat ion immediately, and in any event, within 30 days of the date of this order. In light of Defendants' representation that Plaintiff has not returned an executed Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal in this action, the Court hereby grants Defe ndants' request to set a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC. Defendants must file their motion to dismiss by June 6, 2022. Plaintiff must file his opposition by July 22, 2022. Defendants must file their reply by August 12, 2022. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 6/6/2022., Responses due by 7/22/2022, Replies due by 8/12/2022.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/9/2022) (vfr)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-07622-LTS-RWL Document 71 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TYRONE MASSEY, Plaintiff, No. 1:20-CV-7622 (LTS) (RWL) -againstCITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. ORDER On April 8, 2022, counsel for Defendants informed the Court that Plaintiff “has agreed in principle to voluntarily dismiss the instant matter, with prejudice” and requested that the Court hold Defendants’ deadline to file their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in abeyance, pending execution of the contemplated, proposed stipulation of dismissal. (Docket entry no. 68.) The Court extended the briefing deadlines for Defendants’ motion to dismiss sine die and directed Defendants to file a status update by May 6, 2022. (Docket entry no. 69.) On May 6, 2022, Defendants filed their status report (docket entry no. 70), noting that they were informed by the Department of Correction that Plaintiff “was released from custody on April 25, 2022[;]” that they “had not received the signed Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal from [P]laintiff[;]” and that they “are unaware of any way to contact [P]laintiff at this time to further discuss this matter.” (Id.) Plaintiff is responsible for providing up-to-date contact information to the Court. Therefore, the Court hereby directs Plaintiff to provide the Court with his updated contact information immediately, and in any event, within 30 days of the date of this order. In light of Defendants’ representation that Plaintiff has not returned an executed Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal in this action, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ request to MASSEY - ORD VERSION MAY 9, 2022 1 Case 1:20-cv-07622-LTS-RWL Document 71 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2 set a briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC. Defendants must file their motion to dismiss by June 6, 2022. Plaintiff must file his opposition by July 22, 2022. Defendants must file their reply by August 12, 2022. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2022 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain____ LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge MASSEY - ORD VERSION MAY 9, 2022 2

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?