Lopez v. Elyse S. Silverman
Robert G. Lopez v. Elyse S. Silverman, Silverman Kleinman, LLP, Catherine Fandino, Harold Deiters III, Empire Valuation Consultants, LLC, Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank N.A., PayPal, Inc., and Block, Inc. d/b/a Square
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lopez v. Silverman, Judge Rochon accepted a late motion, extended service deadline, and dismissed Block with prejudice.
Robert G. Lopez; the Silverman defendants, whose late motion to dismiss was accepted as timely; Catherine Fandino, whose service deadline was extended; and Block, Inc., against which all claims were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
What happened
In Robert G. Lopez v. Elyse S. Silverman and others, Robert G. Lopez, representing himself, sued several defendants and later filed an amended complaint. The Silverman defendants filed their motion to dismiss six days late, and Lopez asked the court to strike it.
The court accepted the Silverman defendants’ late motion because the delay was brief, Lopez showed no real prejudice, and the defendants promptly sought permission after discovering the mistake. The court also extended Lopez’s deadline to serve Catherine Fandino until December 18, 2025.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the Silverman defendants’ request to treat their motion as timely, denied Lopez’s motion to strike, and voluntarily dismissed all claims against Block, Inc. with prejudice and without costs.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Elyse S. Silverman · No. 1:25-cv-07380
- Rochon
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
Robert G. Lopez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Block, Inc.; Citigroup; Harold L. Deiters, III; Empire Valuation Consultants, LLC; Catherine Fandino; PayPal, Inc.; Elyse S. Silverman; and Silverman Kleinman, LLP. Lopez later filed an amended complaint as of right. The opinion states that the Empire defendants and Citigroup filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 21 and November 25, 2025. The Silverman defendants filed their motion on December 2, six days after the November 26 deadline.
Motion to Strike
Lopez moved to strike and deny the Silverman defendants’ motion as untimely. The Silverman defendants opposed that request and asked the court to accept their late motion.
The court granted the Silverman defendants’ request and denied Lopez’s motion to strike. Applying the rule allowing a court to extend a missed deadline for “excusable neglect,” the court considered the short length of the delay, the lack of demonstrated prejudice to Lopez, the defendants’ good-faith effort to correct the error, and their proposed adjusted briefing schedule. The court deemed the motion timely filed retroactively. Lopez’s opposition was due December 26, 2025, and the Silverman defendants’ reply was due January 5, 2026.
Service on Catherine Fandino
Lopez also requested more time to serve Catherine Fandino. The court granted that request and gave Lopez until December 18, 2025, to serve Fandino.
Dismissal of Block, Inc.
Lopez stated that he did not intend to pursue his claims against Block, Inc. and did not oppose dismissal of Block. The court therefore voluntarily dismissed the action against Block, Inc. with prejudice and without costs under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court was directed to dismiss all claims against Block and terminate the motion at Docket 36.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon’s order resolved the deadline, service, and voluntary-dismissal issues described above. It did not decide the merits of the pending motions to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.