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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Velissaris

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-01347
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Summary JudgmentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Velissaris, Judge Clarke allowed an untimely response, set new briefing deadlines, and lifted the stay without deciding summary judgment.

Who this affects

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and James Robert Velissaris were affected: Velissaris received additional time to file a corrected opposition, the Commission received a deadline for its reply, and the stay of the case was lifted.

What happened

In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Velissaris, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission asked the court to decide the case without a trial. James Robert Velissaris, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed his opposition after the deadline.

The court agreed to consider that late filing. Because Velissaris appeared to request more time to provide documentation, the court allowed him to file a corrected opposition by May 16, 2025, and allowed the Commission to file a reply by May 30, 2025. The court warned that if Velissaris did not file a corrected brief, it would consider only his existing filing when deciding the motion.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also lifted the stay because the parties had not settled or otherwise resolved the case. The order did not decide the Commission’s summary judgment motion; it set briefing deadlines and directed the Clerk to update the docket and mail the order to Velissaris.

The detailed version

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

Case
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Velissaris · No. 1:22-cv-01347
Judge
Clarke
Date
May 1, 2025

Background

On March 27, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a motion for summary judgment and notified James Robert Velissaris of the motion. Summary judgment asks the court to decide a case without a trial when the required materials show that there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Velissaris, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an opposition on April 25, 2025. The court described that opposition as untimely. The opposition also appeared to request more time to submit a full brief and documentation.

Order

The court exercised its discretion to consider the untimely opposition, citing the interest in resolving the issues on their merits and Velissaris’s status as a self-represented party. The court set the following schedule:

- Velissaris may file a corrected opposition of no more than 25 pages, or 8,750 words, by May 16, 2025. - The Commission may file a reply by May 30, 2025. - If Velissaris does not file an amended or corrected brief by May 16, the court will consider only the existing opposition, identified as ECF No. 52, when deciding the summary judgment motion.

The court reminded Velissaris to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 and Local Civil Rule 56.1, which concern how parties must present and support disputed facts in summary judgment briefing.

Stay and disposition

Because the parties had not reached a settlement or another resolution, the court lifted the stay previously imposed in the case. It directed the Clerk of Court to update the docket to show that the stay had been lifted, mail the order to Velissaris, and update the docket with his current address.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke did not grant or deny the Commission’s summary judgment motion in this order. The order addressed briefing and case administration, leaving the motion to be decided after the permitted briefing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-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.