Anderson v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-07113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shalicia Anderson v. City of New York, Judge Cote received defendants’ requests but the provided text shows no court ruling.
The requests concerned the defendants’ deadline to respond to the amended complaint, Anderson’s obligation to provide medical releases, and the scheduling of the initial conference. The provided text does not show whether the court granted or denied any request.
What happened
Shalicia Anderson v. City of New York is a defense letter about the status of medical releases and records needed in the case. Defendants said they had obtained records from four of six providers using releases that did not fully meet court requirements.
Defendants asked for more time to respond to the amended complaint, an order requiring Anderson to provide properly completed medical releases, and a postponement of the initial conference. They also said some records were uncertified and that additional matters remained unresolved.
The letter was addressed to Judge Denise L. Cote. The provided text does not include a ruling by Judge Cote on any of these requests, so no motion disposition is shown.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07113
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 5, 2019
Nature of the document
The provided text is a letter from counsel for the defendants to Judge Denise L. Cote. It reports on medical releases and asks the court to grant several requests. It does not contain a judicial opinion or an order ruling on those requests.
Background
The defendants identified themselves as the City of New York, Malcolm Liu, Anwar Bashiru, and La-Ronda Knox. They said Anderson had been required to provide medical releases under an earlier court order and Local Civil Rule 83.10, Exhibit B. According to the letter, Anderson’s releases did not fully comply with that rule, which calls for two-page, captioned, notarized releases and certified medical records.
The defendants stated that they had tried to use the nonconforming releases to obtain records. They reported receiving records from four of six providers, although some records were uncertified. They said they had not received responsive records for the final two releases associated with the William F. Ryan Center. On December 5, 2019, Anderson’s counsel sent two additional releases for that provider, but the defendants said those releases also did not include the required two-page captioned and notarized forms.
Requests described in the letter
The defendants asked the court to:
- Extend the deadline for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint from December 6, 2019, through January 10,
- 2. Require Anderson to provide fully completed medical releases for all medical providers by a date set by the court.
- Postpone the initial conference scheduled for June 5, 2020, to allow more time for mediation and settlement efforts.
The letter also stated that additional issues concerning service of process on individual defendant Albert Otero and the scope of an October 28, 2019 order remained unresolved and were not addressed in the letter.
Ruling and classification
The provided text does not state that Judge Cote granted, denied, or otherwise decided any of the defendants’ requests. Because no court action or disposition appears in the supplied material, the document is classified as other rather than as a substantive or procedural ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.