Marom v. Pierot
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-12094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Marom v. Pierot, Judge Briccetti extended objection deadlines and denied appeal fee-waiver status after Mark Gordon reported not receiving the recommendation.
The order affected Michael Marom, Audrey Pierot, and Mark Gordon by extending their objection deadlines; it specifically addressed Gordon’s failure to receive the Report and Recommendation and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Marom v. Pierot, the court was told that defendant Mark Gordon had not received Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s report and recommendation.
The court extended every party’s deadline to object to that report and recommendation until February 21, 2020, and said no further extensions would be granted. The court also ordered that copies be mailed to Gordon, Michael Marom, and Audrey Pierot at their docket addresses.
Judge Briccetti ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Marom v. Pierot · No. 7:18-cv-12094
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
The court was informed by defendant Mark Gordon that he had not received Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation, identified as Document 62.
Rulings
The court extended all parties’ deadlines for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation until February 21, 2020. The court stated that it would grant no further extensions.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees. The court directed chambers to mail the order and the Report and Recommendation to Gordon, and to mail the order to plaintiff Michael Marom and defendant Audrey Pierot, at the addresses listed on the docket.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed deadlines, delivery of court documents, and payment status for a possible appeal. It did not resolve the underlying claims or objections.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.