Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal following the completion of discovery. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 31. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave on 5/8/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAMES JOHN GENCARELLI,
-v-

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 23 Civ. 8438 (AT) (SLC)
ORDER

TOTO USA INC.,
Defendant.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

On May 7, 2024, pro se Plaintiff James Gencarelli (“Mr. Gencarelli”) filed a “motion for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(c).” (ECF No. 31
(the “Motion”)). Having reviewed the Motion, however, the Court construes it as a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “as it is necessary to the
resolution of [the Motion] to consider matters outside the pleadings[.]” Chevalier v. Presbyterian
Hosp., No. 95 Civ. 2976 (RO), 1995 WL 758593, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 1995). In the Motion,
Mr. Gencarelli argues that the alleged facts establishing Defendant’s liability “will be proven by
documentary evidence, sworn testimony and the court’s [] Judicial judgment of the facts
presented[.]” (ECF No. 31 at 5). Mr. Gencarelli also attaches to the Motion several exhibits that
are not contained in the pleadings (see ECF No. 31-1), and argues that this “evidence []
unequivocally establishes the defendant’s liability for the harm inflicted upon” Mr. Gencarelli.
(ECF No. 31 at 8). See Lopos v. Ruocco, 99 F. Supp. 2d 207, 207 (D. Conn. 2000) (“While it is styled
a motion for judgment on the pleadings, [the pro se plaintiff’s motion] is actually a motion for
summary judgment since it contains matters outside the pleadings.”).

Because discovery in this matter is ongoing (see ECF No. 25 at 4), the Motion is premature.
See Bristol v. Schenk, No. 14 Civ. 6647 (JFB) (AKT), 2017 WL 9485715, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 31,
2017) (“Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s desire to engage in summary judgment motion practice, such
a motion is premature at this stage of the litigation, particularly since discovery is still ongoing.”),
adopted by, 2017 WL 4277158 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017). Although Mr. Gencarelli argues that
“there are no material issues in dispute” (ECF No. 31 at 10), “the Court has not received any
competent evidence demonstrating whether genuine issues of fact are indeed in dispute[.]”
Bristol, 2017 WL 9485715, at *4 (in recommending denial of pro se plaintiff’s summary judgment
motion as premature, noting that “[i]t is only through the completion of the discovery process
that the Court will have the benefit of a complete record—consisting of the pleadings, discovery,
disclosure materials and any affidavits/declarations—in order to properly test the sufficiency of
the evidence in the context of summary judgment motion practice”).
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal following the
completion of discovery.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 31.
Dated:

New York, New York
May 8, 2024

SO ORDERED.
_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge

2