Liverpool v. The City of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-04629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liverpool v. The City of New York, Magistrate Judge Wang extended Liverpool’s deadline to respond to defendants’ dismissal motion and ordered renewed service.
Anton Liverpool receives an extended deadline and additional copies of the motion papers. The Clerk and defendants’ counsel must serve the materials, and defendants’ counsel must file proof of service.
What happened
In Liverpool v. The City of New York, the court addressed whether Anton Liverpool had received defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defense counsel said the motion had been mailed to Liverpool on June 20, 2025.
The court recognized that properly mailed documents are generally presumed received, but also acknowledged that Liverpool might have difficulty receiving mail or accessing the electronic filing system. It extended his deadline to respond to the motion until August 14, 2025.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang directed the Clerk and defendants’ counsel to send Liverpool additional copies of the motion and this order. Defendants’ counsel must also file proof that the materials were served.
The detailed version
- Liverpool v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04629
- Andrew Carter
- July 21, 2025
Background
The court reviewed docket entry 94 and considered defense counsel’s statement that defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket entries 187, 188, and 189, had been sent to Anton Liverpool by first-class mail on June 20, 2025.
The court explained that a properly addressed and mailed letter is generally presumed to have been received because of the reliability of the postal system and the presumption that postal employees perform their duties properly.
Order
Despite that presumption, the court acknowledged that Liverpool might face challenges receiving mail or accessing the court’s electronic filing system. The court extended Liverpool’s deadline to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss to Thursday, August 14, 2025.
The Clerk was directed to serve Liverpool at his last known address with copies of docket entries 187, 188, and 189. Defendants’ counsel was directed to serve Liverpool with this order and another copy of those docket entries, then file proof of service on the docket.
Effect
This order extends the response deadline and requires the motion papers to be served again. It does not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.