Kamal v. Singh

Background

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment asks the court to decide claims without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Karim H. Kamal, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an opposition and supporting declaration, and Uber filed a reply.

Notice Requirement

Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 56.2 requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file a separate notice explaining the requirements for opposing the motion. The notice must include the full texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. The opinion states that Uber did not file those materials with its motion.

Order

The court attached the required notice and the full texts of the two rules. It allowed Kamal until September 8, 2025, to file a supplemental opposition, a counterstatement responding to Uber’s statement of material facts, and any additional evidence he wanted the court to consider.

The order stated that each numbered paragraph in Uber’s statement of material facts would be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion unless Kamal specifically denied and controverted it with citations to admissible evidence. It also stated that, if Kamal did not make a timely supplemental submission with affidavits or documents contradicting Uber’s asserted material facts, the court might accept Uber’s facts as true. Judge Ricardo did not rule on the merits of Uber’s summary-judgment motion in this order.