Byrd v. Grove Street Management Corporation et al

Filing 18

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- ORDER denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice and with leave to re-file after the completion of discovery. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/11/16. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VICKIE DIANNE BYRD,
Plaintiff,
DECISION and ORDER
No. 6:16-cv-6017(MAT)

-vsGROVE STREET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
and BARBARA MANOR LLIC,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Vickie

Dianne

Byrd

(“Plaintiff”),

proceeding

pro

se,

instituted this action against Grove Street Management Corporation
and

Barbara

Manor

LLC

(collectively,

“Defendants”),

alleging

discrimination based on national origin, race, and disability in
violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). Pending before the Court
is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 56”).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Grove Street Management Corporation, a real estate asset
management company, is the rental agent and property manager of
property, owned by Barbara Manor LLC and located at the corner of
Emerson and Mt. Read Boulevard in the City of Rochester, New York.
From about November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015, Plaintiff
rented an apartment owned by Barbara Manor LLC and managed by Grove
Street Management

Coproration.

Plaintiff’s final

lease,

which

covered the period from November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015,
was not renewed.
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 11, 2016, alleging
discrimination based on national origin, race, and disability in
violation of the Fair Housing Act. The gravamen of the Complaint is
that Defendants unlawfully evicted her and refused to renew her
lease. To these allegations, Plaintiff adds conclusory references
to personal injury and property damage, and mentions other legal
proceedings between the parties as well as unspecified actions and
decisions committed by an unidentified “lawless judge.”
On September 13, 2016, Defendants filed a timely Answer to the
Complaint. By Order dated September 16, 2016, the Court scheduled
a

preliminary

conference

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 16 (“Rule 16”) with Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman
for November 16, 2016.
Defendants received, on or about September 22, 2016, from
Plaintiff what appeared to be a Response to their Answer. Although
there was no reference to harassment in her Complaint, Plaintiff
indicated in the Response that she was asserting a claim for
unlawful harassment based on alleged “documents and records of
discriminations [sic] & harassment of these lawless landlords.”
Prior to the Rule 16 conference, on or about September 28,
2016,

Plaintiff

filed

a

two-page

motion

(Dkt

#14)

asserting

entitlement to summary judgment “due to the lawless (lawless)

-2-

eviction suffered bye [sic] this black/A.A. (Disabled cit[i]zen).”
Plaintiff did not cite to any other facts to support her claims, or
offer any argument as to why she is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
On

or

about

October

24,

2016,

Defendants

received

from

Plaintiff a document styled as a “Summary of Relief Sought,” newly
asserting that Defendants discriminated against her based on her
age, religion, and familial status. In this document, Plaintiff
referred, for the first time, to the New York State Human Rights
Law.
On October 24, 2016, the attorney for Defendants left a
voicemail for Plaintiff asking to discuss a schedule for completing
discovery and to request additional time to respond to her summary
judgment motion. Plaintiff returned Defendants’ attorney’s call on
October 26, 2016, and left a voicemail stating she would not agree
to Defendants’ request for additional time to respond to her
motion.
On October 27, 2016, in anticipation of the upcoming Rule 16
conference, Defendants sent Plaintiff a proposed scheduling order
and suggested a mediator drawn from the Court’s list of approved
mediators. On October 28, 2016, Defendants filed their opposition
to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion requesting that the Court
deny the requested relief as premature, since there has been no
opportunity to obtain discovery in this matter. For the reasons

-3-

discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice as
premature.
DISCUSSION
Rule 56 provides that summary judgment is warranted where the
“pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
“However, summary judgment should only be granted ‘[i]f after
discovery, the nonmoving party “has failed to make a sufficient
showing on an essential element of [its] case with respect to which
[it] has the burden of proof.”’” Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of
Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Berger v.
United States, 87 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)) (alterations in Berger;
emphasis in Hellstrom). “The nonmoving party must have ‘had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his
opposition’ to the motion for summary judgment.” Id. (quoting
Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506,
511 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 250 n. 5 (1986)). The Second Circuit has emphasized that
it is “[o]nly in the rarest of cases” that summary judgment may be
entered against a party who has not been afforded the opportunity
to conduct discovery. Id. (citing, inter alia, Sutera v. Schering

-4-

Corp., 73 F.3d 13, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversing grant of summary
judgment, which had been entered before any discovery had taken
place; in those circumstances, “it cannot be said that plaintiff
had a full and fair opportunity to show that Schering’s articulated
reason for his dismissal was pretextual”)).
Here, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is undoubtedly
premature. The allegations in Plaintiff’s various filings have been
vague and conclusory, and , and have shifted from one document to
the next. Defendants have averred that the fluctuating nature of
Plaintiff’s allegations makes it difficult to discern the legal
bases for Plaintiff’s claims. As Defendants point out, they have
not had an opportunity to conduct any discovery in this matter,
which seems likely to involve numerous contested issues of fact.
There is a “critical distinction . . . between cases where a
litigant opposing a motion for summary judgment requests a stay of
that motion to conduct additional discovery and cases where[, as
here,] that same litigant opposes a motion for summary judgment on
the ground that it is entitled to an opportunity to commence
discovery

with

respect

to

Plaintiff’s

claims

and

its

counterclaims.” Crystalline H2O, Inc. v. Orminski, 105 F. Supp. 2d
3, 6–7 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 n. 5).
Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to enter
summary judgment against Defendants and in Plaintiff’s favor. See
Trebor, 865 F.2d at 511 (denying Rule 56 motion as premature

-5-

because nonmoving party did not have “fully adequate opportunity
for

discovery”

at

the

time

the

moving

party

sought

summary

judgment); see also, e.g., Lawrence v. Baxter, No. 03-CV-228S, 2004
WL 1701102, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2004) (denying plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment as premature where case involved
“numerous contested issues of law and fact” and parties had had
“little (if any) opportunity to conduct discovery”) (citations
omitted). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion
without prejudice, and with leave to re-file after the completion
of discovery.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt #14) is denied without prejudice and with
leave to re-file after the completion of discovery.
SO ORDERED
Honorable Michael A. Telesca
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
DATED:

November 11, 2016
Rochester, New York

-6-