Franklin v. City Of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-03815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franklin v. City Of New York, Judge Vyskocil denied exemption, granted an adjournment, and denied striking a letter.
The plaintiffs’ request for an exemption was denied, the defendants’ request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference was granted, and the defendants’ request to strike the plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter was denied.
What happened
In Franklin v. City Of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to exempt the case from Local Civil Rule 83.10, objecting to the rule’s procedures after New York repealed Civil Rights Law Section 50-a. The defendants opposed the request.
The court denied the exemption request, explaining that Section 50-a had not bound federal courts even when it was in effect. The case therefore remains governed by the Southern District of New York’s plan for certain Section 1983 cases against New York City. The court also granted the defendants’ request to postpone the initial pretrial conference until after mediation and set that conference for December 17, 2020.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also denied defense counsel’s request to remove from the record a letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel concerning communications about service of process.
The detailed version
- Franklin v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03815
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 9, 2020
Background
David Franklin et al. sued City of New York et al. The plaintiffs asked the court to exempt the case from Local Civil Rule 83.10. They did not identify special circumstances requiring an exemption; instead, they objected generally to the rule’s procedures and argued that the procedures should change because New York had repealed Civil Rights Law Section 50-a. The defendants opposed the request.
Rulings
The court held that Section 50-a had not been binding on federal courts while it was in effect and that its repeal did not require changing Local Civil Rule 83.10 procedures. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ request to exempt the case. The case remains governed by the Southern District of New York’s Plan for Certain Section 1983 Cases against the City of New York.
The court also addressed the initial pretrial conference. It stated that the previously scheduled October 29, 2020 conference had been set in error. The court granted the defendants’ request to adjourn the conference until after the parties participated in mediation under the plan. The conference was set for December 17, 2020, at 12:00 p.m.
Finally, the court denied defense counsel’s request to strike from the record a letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel concerning communications about service of process.
Effect of the Order
The case was not dismissed. The exemption request was denied, the conference adjournment was granted, and the request to strike the letter was denied. The order addressed case-management and record-related matters rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.