Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK

United States District Court, S.D. New York


November 5, 2004.

ADA RODRIGUEZ, et ano., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from the judgment, Defendants, after obtaining an extension of time, filed papers in opposition to the motion, which plaintiffs received on September 21, 2004. Plaintiffs then applied for "a brief extension of time" to reply. The Court extended the time within which to reply until October 7, 2004. Docket item 40. Plaintiffs filed their reply papers on October 6, 2004. Docket item 39. The Rule 60(b) motion was denied without prejudice on November 3, 2004. Docket item 46.

The Court now is in receipt of plaintiffs' letter, dated November 4, 2004 and addressed to Judge Lynch, in which plaintiffs argue at Length that Judge Lynch, who granted the defendants' request for an extension of time within which to respond to plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion, erred. They demand an explanation why that request was submitted to Judge Lynch. The Court treats the letter as an application for reconsideration of Judge Lynch's order.

  This case is assigned to the undersigned. All applications are to be made to the assigned judge except that emergency matters shall be heard by the Part I judge "when the assigned judge is absent or has expressly referred the matter of Part I because said judge is unavailable due to extraordinary circumstances." Rule 5(b), Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges, as was the case with respect to the application granted by Judge Lynch in Part I. Moreover, applications for extensions of time, when made before expiration of the time period in which the extension is sought, may be made without notice. Fed.R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). There is no basis whatever for reconsideration of Judge Lynch's order, which in any event is moot in light of the facts that (a) plaintiffs obtained an extension of time within which to reply to the defendants' papers, (b) plaintiffs in fact filed reply papers, and (c) the motion has been decided.

  Accordingly, plaintiffs' application is denied in all respects.

  SO ORDERED.

20041105

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.