Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09563
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Judge Torres granted one deadline extension and denied another.
The immediate procedural effect was on plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, who received more time to respond to the dismissal order but no extension concerning the related-case decision.
What happened
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., the court had ordered Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester to explain why their case should not be dismissed as duplicative of two earlier cases. They asked for more time to respond.
The court granted their request for more time to answer the dismissal order, setting December 11, 2019, as the new deadline. It denied their request for more time to respond to the court’s decision treating this case as related to another case because no response deadline had been set.
Judge Analisa Torres also stated that the court controls related-case decisions and that those decisions are not open to litigation. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Wood and Malester, who were representing themselves.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09563
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
On November 8, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester to show cause—meaning to explain—why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of two earlier cases, identified as 14 Civ. 7535 and 18 Civ. 726. On November 19, Plaintiffs asked for extensions of two deadlines: the deadline to respond to the order to show cause and a deadline to respond to the Court’s decision accepting this case as related to 14 Civ. 7535.
Rulings
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for responding to the order to show cause. Plaintiffs were ordered to file their response by December 11, 2019.
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for responding to the related-case decision. The Court explained that no deadline had been imposed for responding to that decision. It also stated that determining whether cases are related is committed to the Court’s discretion and is not subject to litigation.
Effect of the Order
This order ruled on the requested extensions; it did not decide whether the case should be dismissed as duplicative. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Plaintiffs, who were proceeding without lawyers.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.