Williams v. Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation

Background

Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation, Karen Warner, and Muhamet Islamovic moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for a ruling based on the evidence without a trial. Williams was proceeding without a lawyer. Williams also filed counter-motions, listed on the docket as Docket ## 125, 126, and 128.

Notice and service problem

The court found no indication that the defendants had served Williams with the notice and other materials required by Local Civil Rule 56.2. That rule requires a represented party seeking summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file a separate notice explaining the consequences of failing to respond properly. The movant must also provide copies of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1.

The court noted that Williams had not filed a counterstatement responding to the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement and had not filed sworn statements. It was therefore concerned that the missing notice had practical consequences. The court also cited Second Circuit authority stating that failing to give a self-represented litigant actual notice of the consequences of an inadequate response will usually justify vacating a resulting decision.

The court further stated that, although some papers contained notations that certain documents had been sent to Williams by mail, the defendants had never filed the certificate of service required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1)(B)(i).

Ruling and next steps

The court deemed the defendants’ motion, Docket # 117, and Williams’s counter-motions, Docket ## 125, 126, and 128, withdrawn. The order did not grant or deny summary judgment and did not decide the merits of the case.

The defendants were ordered to file and serve their motion in proper form by October 22, 2025, and Williams’s opposition was due by November 19, 2025. Any reply was due within 14 days after Williams’s response. Williams could adopt his prior opposition papers, but the court stated that those papers were not sufficient to oppose summary judgment. He was required to submit evidence, including witness statements in affidavit form. The defendants were also ordered to comply with the certificate-of-service requirement when filing the new motion papers. The order stated that the courthouse’s Pro Se Office might assist Williams with court procedures.