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 withdrew a decision imposing a filing injunction and ordered further review before deciding that issue.
James H. Brady and the parties in the two related cases. The earlier decision imposing a filing injunction was withdrawn, and the court reserved the issue for later consideration.
What happened
Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P. concerns the court’s handling of a possible filing injunction against James H. Brady. The court had previously considered the issue after a magistrate judge recommended dismissing Brady’s claims and issued an order asking Brady to explain why an injunction should not be recommended.
The court acknowledged that it had misunderstood the procedure described in the magistrate judge’s report. It had treated the filing-injunction issue as ready for decision even though the report contemplated a later recommendation and an opportunity for objections.
Judge Engelmayer withdrew the September 3, 2020 decision in its entirety. The court ordered an amended opinion addressing only the merits of Brady’s claims, reserved judgment on any filing injunction, and directed the clerk to vacate the earlier opinion and order in both related cases.
The detailed version
- Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P. · No. 1:19-cv-10142
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
The court considered James H. Brady’s September 4, 2020 letter about a filing injunction. On July 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of Brady’s claims and considering whether to recommend a filing injunction. Judge Wang also issued an order requiring Brady to show cause by letter why the district judge should not enter such an injunction. The report stated that, after Brady responded, the magistrate judge would issue a later report and recommendation specifically addressing the filing injunction.
Brady objected to the report on August 7 and opposed the proposed filing injunction on August 17. After defendants responded to his objections, the district court treated all issues as submitted and issued a September 3 decision addressing both the merits of Brady’s claims and the filing injunction.
Court’s reasoning
Brady pointed out that the September 3 decision had skipped the later report and recommendation described in Judge Wang’s report. The court agreed. It stated that it had mistakenly treated the filing-injunction issue as fully submitted after Brady’s response and therefore lacked both Judge Wang’s later recommendation and any further objections to that recommendation. The court emphasized the need to give all parties a full, fair, and meaningful opportunity to be heard on the filing injunction.
Disposition
The court withdrew its September 3, 2020 decision in its entirety. It stated that an amended opinion would resolve only the merits of Brady’s claims and would not address a filing injunction. The court reserved judgment on whether a filing injunction was needed until it received Judge Wang’s recommendation and any objections. It directed the clerk to vacate the opinion and order at docket 48 in 19 Civ. 10142 and docket 70 in the related case, 19 Civ. 10622, and to mail Brady a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.