Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 18, 2020

Stinson v. The City Of New York

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:18-cv-00027
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentPro Se
In one sentence

In Stinson v. The City Of New York, Judge Moses denied reconsideration and amendment requests but granted a status-conference request.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Avion Stinson, the defendants, and the court proceedings were affected. The court denied Stinson's requests for reconsideration and further amendment, but granted her request for a status conference.

What happened

In Stinson v. The City Of New York, Avion Stinson filed two letters and a notice stating an intent to sue. One letter asked the court to reconsider an earlier order allowing defendants to withdraw and refile their summary-judgment motion.

Stinson's notice also sought permission to add unrelated parties and claims to her amended complaint. The amendment deadline had passed, and discovery had closed. She separately requested a conference.

The court denied both the reconsideration request and the request to amend the complaint. Judge Barbara Moses granted the request for a status conference and scheduled it for March 11, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stinson v. The City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-00027
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Feb. 18, 2020

Background

The court reviewed two letters and a “Notice of Intent to Sue” filed by plaintiff Avion Stinson on February 5, 2020. The case caption identifies the defendants as The City of New York and others.

Requests and Rulings

Stinson's first letter sought reconsideration of the court's January 31, 2020 order granting defendants' request to withdraw and refile their motion for summary judgment. The court denied that request.

Stinson's notice also sought leave to further amend her amended complaint. The court denied that request because she had not shown good cause to add the unrelated parties and claims described in the notice. The court noted that the amendment deadline was June 29, 2018, and discovery closed on May 1, 2019. It cited the rule that a court may deny an amendment requested after a scheduling-order deadline when the party has not shown good cause.

Stinson's second letter requested a conference. The court granted that request and scheduled a status conference for March 11, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A. The clerk was directed to mail Stinson a copy of the order. Judge Barbara Moses also encouraged Stinson to seek assistance from the NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in preparing her opposition to defendants' summary-judgment motion.

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.