Marom v. Pierot

Background

On January 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a report and recommendation addressing defendants’ motions to dismiss; Marom’s motions for default judgment, summary judgment, and permission to file additional documents; and Gordon’s motion for more time to respond to and enforce a state-court stipulation. The district court extended the parties’ deadlines for objections. Marom, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed objections, followed by additional submissions from Marom, Gordon, and Pierot.

Pierot’s February 18 and February 21 submissions were filed electronically by Clifford Bond, who had not entered an appearance in the case. The court also noted that proof of service had not been filed for Pierot’s February 21 submission, so the docket did not show whether Marom or Gordon had received it.

Rulings

The court denied Gordon’s request to strike Marom’s February 18 objection. It stated that Bond must file an appearance if he sought to represent Pierot. The court extended Marom’s deadline to respond to Gordon’s objections to March 9, 2020. It also allowed Gordon and Pierot to respond to Marom’s objections by that date and stated that no further extensions would be granted. If defendants did not submit anything further, the court would treat them as relying on their earlier submissions.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk to mail the order and Pierot’s February 21 declaration to all parties at the addresses on the docket. This order did not resolve the pending report and recommendation or the underlying motions.