UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
January 13, 2010
BALWAN SINGH HOODA, PLAINTIFF,
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY, A.K.A., AND/OR D/B/A BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES LLC; MICHAEL BEBON, WILLIAM HEMPFLING, WILLIAM ROBERT CASEY, GEORGE GOODE, AND MICHAEL HOLLAND, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 15, 2009 Order partially dismissing his Complaint. This is the second time that Plaintiff has sought leave to file such a motion for reconsideration. And this is the second time that the Court is denying this motion. As the Court ordered on December 7, 2009, "[a]ny such motion for reconsideration would be untimely and, in any event, without merit." In his present motion, Plaintiff has set forth no explanation for how such a motion would be meritorious, or why he needs, nunc pro tunc, such an extreme extension of time. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, Plaintiff had to file any such motion within 14 days of the Court's Order -- or September 29, 2009. Plaintiff did not do so, nor did he move for an extension of time within this period. It is now three and a half months later. The Court will not, effectively, extend Plaintiff's time to respond by several months, especially where Plaintiff has provided no grounds or explanation for such a motion would succeed.
The Court's electronic order, dated January 13, 2010, granting Plaintiff's motion was issued in error. It is a nullity.
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.