Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-04702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Judge Wang denied requests to delay summary-judgment proceedings and addressed several earlier filings.
John Bal and the defendants, because the order resolved Bal’s requests to delay the case, addressed several earlier filings, and set a final opportunity for Bal to reply in the summary-judgment briefing.
What happened
Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury concerns John Bal’s requests to delay briefing and a decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Bal argued that several earlier motions and requests were still awaiting decisions.
The court explained that those filings had already been withdrawn, denied, denied as moot, or otherwise resolved. It denied requests for a continuance or stay, found that filings in the Court of Appeals did not require a stay, and gave Bal one final opportunity to file a reply by December 6, 2024. The order did not decide the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied overlapping requests to continue or stay the case, denied in part or as moot the specific requests described in the order, denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, and directed the Clerk to close two docket entries.
The detailed version
- Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury · No. 1:21-cv-04702
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 22, 2024
Background
The parties were briefing cross-motions for summary judgment. The briefing schedule had been extended several times. John Bal, who was representing himself, filed letters or letter motions asking the court to continue or stay the briefing and decision because he believed various matters were still pending.
The order addressed the filings Bal specifically identified as pending or undecided and explained their status.
Earlier filings addressed by the court
- ECF 21: Bal withdrew his motion for default. A later request for default judgment at ECF 79 was denied at ECF
- - ECF 108: This was treated as a second request for recusal and reconsideration of the earlier recusal decision. Recusal was denied at ECF
- The court also denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal from that decision. - ECF 109: Bal asked the court to strike footnote 6 from the court’s 2023 opinion. The court denied the motion because the footnote was not scandalous and did not find that Bal was or had been a sanctions target. - ECF 114: Bal sought to amend his first amended complaint to add the defendants’ counsel as a defendant based on arguments made during the motion to dismiss and the counsel’s failure to respond to an email. The court stated that the request was untimely, futile, and not made in good faith, and explained that government attorneys defending a lawsuit have absolute immunity for their advocacy functions. The Clerk was directed to close ECF
- - ECF 115: Bal sought to serve individual defendants. Because those defendants had already been served and dismissed, and because an earlier request for default judgment against them had been denied, the motion was denied as moot. - ECF 126: The court treated a possible request for an extension as moot because the briefing schedule had already been extended. To the extent the filing sought a stay while the Court of Appeals considered Bal’s filings, that request was denied. - ECF 138: The court stated that its individual practices prohibit unauthorized communications with the court outside the presence of the other parties, except with advance permission, usually for settlement communications. - ECF 140: Bal sought reconsideration of the latest scheduling order. Except as discussed concerning his opportunity to file a reply, the request was denied as moot. The Clerk was directed to close ECF 140.
Summary-judgment briefing and ruling
The court noted that the scheduling order allowed Bal until November 22, 2024, to reply to the defendants’ opposition. Although Bal had filed an earlier document labeled as a reply before the defendants filed their opposition, the court gave him one final opportunity, because he was representing himself, to file a reply to the defendants’ opposition by December 6, 2024. He could also choose not to file another reply.
The court concluded that none of the filings identified in Bal’s later letter was pending or undecided or justified staying a decision on the cross-motions for summary judgment. It denied the later letter and any other filings seeking a continuance or stay for overlapping reasons. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal. This order addressed scheduling and related motions; it did not decide the merits of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.