Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2019

Marett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:19-cv-05144
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Marett v. MTA, Judge Daniels approved an unopposed request to extend the amendment deadline and add Alan Posner as a plaintiff.

Who this affects

Lucia Marett and Alan Posner, whose requested amendment, joinder, and addition of claims were addressed; the defendants did not oppose the request.

What happened

In Marett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Lucia Marett’s lawyers asked for more time to amend the complaint and add Alan Posner as a plaintiff. They requested moving the deadline from December 4 to December 9, 2019.

The lawyers said they received Posner’s signed retainer on November 27 and needed the extension to add him and his individual claims. They also stated that this was their first such request and that the defendants did not oppose it.

The filing was marked “SO ORDERED” by Judge George B. Daniels, reflecting approval of the requested extension and joinder. The text does not separately use the word “granted.”

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Marett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · No. 1:19-cv-05144
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Dec. 3, 2019

Background

Counsel for Lucia Marett asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to extend the deadline for amending the complaint from December 4, 2019, to December 9, 2019. Counsel also sought to join Alan Posner as an additional plaintiff and add his individual claims.

Counsel explained that they received Posner’s executed retainer by mail on November 27, 2019. The letter stated that this was the plaintiffs’ first request for the relief and that the defendants did not oppose it.

Ruling

The filing bears the notation “SO ORDERED” and the signature of Judge George B. Daniels. It therefore reflects approval of the requested extension and joinder. The text does not separately state that the request was “granted.”

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.