Kissimina
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-04261
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kissimina v. Ed’s Lobster Bar, Judge Clarke granted the parties’ joint request to extend summary-judgment deadlines because of counsel’s workload and discovery issues.
The parties and their counsel, because the deadlines for summary-judgment motions and related filings were extended.
What happened
In Kissimina, Nade, et al. v. Ed’s Lobster Bar LLC, et al., the parties jointly asked the court for more time to file motions for summary judgment and related responses. Plaintiff’s counsel said additional time was needed to prepare the motion, and the parties cited unresolved discovery issues.
The requested deadlines were moved from October 2, October 21, and October 31, 2025, to October 16, November 4, and November 14, 2025, respectively. The parties said this was their first extension request and would not prejudice anyone or affect other deadlines.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the request on September 4, 2025. The order changed only the schedule for the summary-judgment motions, oppositions, and replies; it did not decide the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Kissimina · No. 1:24-cv-04261
- Clarke
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
The parties jointly requested an extension under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They asked to change the deadlines for motions for summary judgment, which are motions asking the court to resolve claims without a trial, and for the responses and replies to those motions.
The existing deadlines were October 2, 2025, for the motions; October 21, 2025, for oppositions; and October 31, 2025, for replies. The parties proposed new deadlines of October 16, November 4, and November 14, 2025, respectively.
The request stated that plaintiff’s counsel needed additional time to prepare the summary-judgment motion. It also stated that discovery issues remained outstanding, that the case was at an early stage, that no trial had been scheduled, and that this was the first request to extend these deadlines. The parties represented that all counsel agreed to the request and that no party would be prejudiced.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the extension request. The order therefore changed the three specified summary-judgment deadlines to the dates proposed by the parties. The order did not rule on any summary-judgment motion or decide any underlying claim.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses case scheduling and does not decide the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.