United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 5, 2004.
ADA RODRIGUEZ, et ano., Plaintiffs,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
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.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.