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 accepted objections, returned Marom’s proposed amended complaint, set a response deadline, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Michael Marom, Audrey Pierot, and Mark Gordon; the Clerk was also directed to return Marom’s proposed amended complaint and exhibits and mail the order to all parties.
What happened
In Marom v. Pierot, Michael Marom, representing himself, objected to a magistrate judge’s report addressing several motions, including defendants’ motions to dismiss and Marom’s motions for default judgment and summary judgment. He also submitted a proposed amended complaint with exhibits.
The court accepted Marom’s objections for filing but directed the Clerk to return the proposed amended complaint and exhibits. The court said it would consider the proposed amended complaint only after ruling on any objections to the report. Defendants’ responses to the objections were due February 18, 2020, with no extensions permitted.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified 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 motions or the proposed amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Marom v. Pierot · No. 7:18-cv-12094
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
On January 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation concerning:
- Audrey Pierot and Mark Gordon’s motions to dismiss; - Michael Marom’s motions for default judgment, summary judgment, and permission to file additional documents; and - Mark Gordon’s motion for more time to respond to and enforce a state-court stipulation.
The District Court later extended the deadline for objections to February 21, 2020. On January 31, 2020, Marom, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed objections and a proposed amended complaint with exhibits. Marom stated that he had chosen to amend the complaint and suggested that the Report and Recommendation might therefore be moot.
Order
The court declined to consider the proposed amended complaint at that stage. It directed the Clerk to return the proposed amended complaint and attached exhibits to Marom. The court did accept Marom’s objections for filing.
The court ordered that defendants’ responses to the objections, if any, were due February 18, 2020, and stated that no extensions would be permitted. The order did not rule on the objections, the Report and Recommendation, the underlying motions, or the proposed amended complaint.
Appeal and disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Marom fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was instructed to mail the order to all parties at their addresses on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.