Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York
Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al.; Charmaine Cooke v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., et al.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-05315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Cooke v. Consolidated Edison and Orange & Rockland, Judge Lehrburger denied Cooke’s fifth extension request; her opposition deadline expired, and the dismissal motion will proceed on existing filings.
Charmaine Cooke and the defendants in the two consolidated copyright-infringement cases. Cooke may no longer file an opposition within the requested extension, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be considered on the existing record.
What happened
In Charmaine Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Charmaine Cooke v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., Cooke, who is representing herself, asked for a fifth extension to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss her copyright-infringement claims. The court had already granted four extensions totaling more than four months and had called the last one final.
Cooke said she needed more time because the defendants had filed an incorrect copy of her work and because she had attended a trial on November 19, 2025. The court found those reasons insufficient, noting that the defendants had filed a certified copy and that Cooke had not explained the other trial’s circumstances.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request. The order states that Cooke’s time to file an opposition had expired and that the defendants’ motion to dismiss would be decided based on the existing record; it did not decide that motion in this order.
The detailed version
- Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York · No. 1:24-cv-05315
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
These consolidated cases assert copyright-infringement claims. Charmaine Cooke is representing herself. The order addresses only Cooke’s latest request for additional time to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed July 21, 2025.
Earlier extensions
The court had granted four extensions:
- The first extended Cooke’s response deadline to September 2, 2025. - The second extended the deadline to September 16, 2025, although the court granted less time than Cooke requested. - The third extended the deadline to October 17, 2025, although Cooke had requested 90 additional days. The court stated that Cooke had to meet deadlines even if appointed volunteer counsel did not appear, and warned that no additional extensions would be granted. - The fourth extended the deadline to November 25, 2025. The court described it as Cooke’s “last and final opportunity” and stated that, without a timely opposition, it would decide the motion to dismiss on the existing record.
The court also noted that it had accommodated Cooke’s stated disabilities by granting extensions and holding conferences remotely. It found that her lengthy and coherent filings in these cases and in a separate wrongful-termination case showed that she could prepare an opposition herself.
Fifth extension request
Cooke’s latest request, dated November 19, 2025, offered two reasons. First, she asserted that the defendants had included an incorrect copy of her copyrighted work. The court found that assertion conclusory and contradicted by the record because the defendants had filed an official copy certified by the United States Copyright Office. The court also noted that Cooke had more than four months to obtain and file another certified copy if she believed the defendants’ copy was incorrect.
Second, Cooke wrote that she had attended a trial on November 19, 2025, but provided no details about the trial’s length, her preparation, or whether she had participated as a party or witness, or with or without a lawyer. The court concluded that this information did not justify another extension.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied Cooke’s request for an additional extension. The order states that her time to file an opposition had expired and that the defendants’ motion to dismiss would be determined on the existing record. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion identified as Dkt. 77 and requested that the Clerk mail a copy of the order to Cooke.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.