Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2025

Donini v. Peaks

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-09706
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Donini v. Peaks, Judge Abrams ordered Peaks to file the missing declaration or explain its docket location before deciding partial summary judgment.

Who this affects

Defendant Phillip Peaks and the pending motion for partial summary judgment; the court’s stated consequence would also affect Plaintiff Chelsea Donini.

What happened

In Donini v. Peaks, Defendant Phillip Peaks’s filing supporting his motion for partial summary judgment repeatedly referred to a declaration that was not filed. Plaintiff Chelsea Donini identified the problem.

The court ordered Peaks to file the declaration or identify where it and related exhibits appear on the docket by the end of April 3, 2025.

Judge Ronnie Abrams said that otherwise the court would decide the pending motion using the existing record and disregard unsupported statements in Peaks’s filing. The order did not decide the partial-summary-judgment motion itself.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Donini v. Peaks · No. 1:22-cv-09706
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 1, 2025

Background

Defendant Phillip Peaks filed a statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 in support of his motion for partial summary judgment. The statement repeatedly cited a “Griffith Declaration.” Plaintiff Chelsea Donini pointed out that Defendant had not filed that declaration.

Order

The court ordered Defendant, by the end of the day on April 3, 2025, either to file the Griffith Declaration or to submit a letter identifying where the declaration and related exhibits had been filed on the docket.

Effect

Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that, if Defendant did not comply, the court would decide the pending motion for partial summary judgment on the record before it and disregard statements in the Rule 56.1 Statement that lacked supporting evidence. The order addressed a filing problem and did not itself decide the motion for partial summary judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.