Moore v. City of New York et al
ORDER with respect to 103 Letter Motion to Stay re: 103 LETTER MOTION to Stay Requesting that Defendants Maldonado, Castelluccio, Rosas, and Vasquez's time to respond be held in abeyance pending the resolution of City defendants ' motion to dismiss from Evan J. Gottstein. By November 28, 2023, the City Defendants shall file a letter with an update on the status of representation for Defendants Maldonado, Castelluccio, Rosas and Vasquez, including whether they joi n in City Defendants' motion to dismiss. So Ordered. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/13/2023) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
By November 28, 2023, the City Defendants shall file a letter with an
update on the status of representation for Defendants Maldonado,
Castelluccio, Rosas and Vasquez, including whether they join in City
Defendants' motion to dismiss. So Ordered.
Honorable Lorna G. Schofield
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this
Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York
Ali Moore v. City of New York, et al.
I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Honorable Sylvia O. HindsRadix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, and the attorney for defendant the City of
New York, David Castro, Nilsa Nivar (formerly Nilsa Patricio), and Sanjay Bajnauth (hereinafter
“City defendants”) in the above-referenced action. City defendants write to respectfully request
that the Court, sua sponte, hold defendants Rosas, Vasquez, Maldonado, and Castelluccio’s
deadline to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint in abeyance, pending the outcome of City
defendants’ motion to dismiss, which is concurrently being filed today.
On May 3, 2023, the parties attended a telephonic conference to address then-plaintiff’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and NYCH+H defendants’ pre-motion conference
letter. City defendants informed the Court that they also intended to move to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Court stayed all defendants’ time to answer or move pending
plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, and after plaintiff indicated whether he intended to
proceed pro se or obtain new counsel. After plaintiff indicated his intention to proceed pro se,
the Court then continued the stay for defendants to respond until after plaintiff amended his
pleadings. On October 23, 2023, the Court extended defendants’ time to move to dismiss until
November 8, 2023.
Due to an oversight regarding the number of named defendants from the NYPD and
FDNY who had previously been served with process and remained in plaintiff’s Fourth
Amended Complaint, and because some defendants’ names barely appear, if at all, in the factual
allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint, this Office has not yet finalized representation
decisions for defendants Maldonado, Castelluccio, Rosas, and Vasquez. 1 However, all of City
defendants’ arguments articulated in their motion papers apply equally to defendants Maldonado,
Castelluccio, Rosas, and Vasquez. Thus, if City defendants’ motion is granted in its entirety, all
claims against these additional defendants would also be dismissed. Therefore, it would best
serve judicial economy and the spirit of the Federal Rules to hold the additional NYPD/FDNY
defendants’ deadlines to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint in abeyance until after the
Court rules on the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing that the Rules should be construed
and employed to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding”); see also Komatsu v. City of New York, et al., S.D.N.Y. Civil Docket No. 20-CV7046 (ER), at ECF No. 87 (staying deadlines to answer for all individual defendants who had not
yet appeared, pending the resolution of a fully dispositive motion to dismiss).
Accordingly, City defendants respectfully request that defendants Maldonado,
Castelluccio, Rosas, and Vasquez’s time to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint be held in
abeyance during the pendency of City defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the alternative, City
defendants respectfully request a two-week sua sponte extension of time for this Office to
determine representation for defendants Maldonado, Castelluccio, Rosas, and Vasquez so they
can join in City defendants’ motion to dismiss.
We thank the Court for its time and consideration of this matter.
Evan J. Gottstein
Evan J. Gottstein
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
Via First Class Mail
Plaintiff Pro Se
2506 East Overland Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21214
Eldar Mayouhas, Esq.
Attorney for NYCH+H Defendants
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
77 Water Street
New York, New York 10005
Plaintiff also lists a “Police Officer Sergeant Montesino” in the caption of the Fourth Amended
Complaint. Upon information and belief, however, there was no sergeant in the NYPD with the
last name Montesino at the time of the incidents at issue, nor were there any individuals assigned
to the 26th Precinct at that time with the last name Montesino. Further, there is no indication that
any Police Officer or Sergeant Montesino was served with process in this action.
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?