Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-10142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brady v. IGS Realty, Judge Engelmayer denied Brady’s request to require separate reports, leaving the merits review for later.
The order affected pro se plaintiff James H. Brady and the parties in the two related cases by keeping the existing objection and response deadlines and allowing one Report and Recommendation to address both cases.
What happened
Brady v. IGS Realty involved two related cases brought by pro se plaintiff James H. Brady. A magistrate judge had issued one Report and Recommendation proposing to dismiss both cases with prejudice and permanently bar Brady from filing certain further complaints.
Brady asked the court to require two separate reports, arguing that combining the cases was unlawful and unconstitutional. The court explained that issuing one decision for related cases is standard practice and that the report discussed each case in separate sections.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Brady’s request for judicial intervention. The court did not yet evaluate the report’s merits; the deadlines for objections and responses remained in place.
The detailed version
- Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P. · No. 1:19-cv-10142
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 21, 2020
Background
The opinion concerns two related cases brought by pro se plaintiff James H. Brady. On July 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a Report and Recommendation—a proposed decision for the district judge—recommending dismissal with prejudice of both cases and a permanent injunction barring Brady from filing additional complaints concerning commercial lease agreements with the IGS Realty defendants and broadly defined related issues.
The Report gave the parties 14 days to object and another 14 days to respond to any objections. On July 21, Brady filed letters asking the district court to require Judge Wang to issue two completely separate Reports and Recommendations. Brady argued that combining the two cases into one report was unlawful, unconstitutional, and unprecedented.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, when cases are related, issuing one Report and Recommendation or decision addressing multiple dockets is standard practice. The court cited examples involving related cases, class actions, and multidistrict litigation. It also stated that the Report appeared to address the two cases in separate sections: one section concerned the IGS Realty docket, and another concerned the Friedlander docket.
The court said the parties should therefore be able to separate their objections to each related case. It did not assess the merits of Judge Wang’s Report because the objections and responses had not yet been fully submitted.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Brady’s request for judicial intervention. The deadlines for objections and responses stated in the Report and in Judge Wang’s related order to show cause remained in effect. The court said it did not invite further commentary on the Report beyond those filings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.