Topp v. Pincus
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Topp v. Pincus, Judge Schofield denied notice of a certificate and set procedures for future pleading motions.
Plaintiff Sylvia Topp and the defendants, including Harry Pincus, were affected: the court denied the request for judicial notice and set deadlines for future pre-motion letters.
What happened
The order in Topp v. Pincus addressed preliminary filings before motions concerning the pleadings and a possible stay. Plaintiff Sylvia Topp had filed a letter about asking the court to take notice of a certificate of occupancy, and the defendants had responded.
The court treated Plaintiff’s letter as a motion for judicial notice, meaning a request for the court to accept a fact or document without ordinary proof. The court denied that motion because serious questions existed about the certificate’s authenticity and accuracy.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Plaintiff to file any letter seeking permission to make a motion for judgment on the pleadings by February 11, 2021, and Defendant to respond by February 18, 2021. The court said it would then set a schedule for the parties’ cross-motions and any related motion to stay.
The detailed version
- Topp v. Pincus · No. 1:20-cv-10016
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Sylvia Topp filed a December 16, 2020, pre-motion letter anticipating a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of a certificate of occupancy. Judicial notice is a procedure allowing a court to accept certain facts or documents without requiring ordinary evidentiary proof. Defendants filed a responsive letter on January 25, 2021.
Defendants also filed a January 25, 2021, pre-motion letter anticipating a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a related motion to stay. Plaintiff filed responsive materials. The court held an initial pretrial and pre-motion conference on February 4, 2021.
Rulings and Procedures
The court construed Plaintiff’s December 16 letter as a motion for judicial notice and denied the motion. The stated reason was that serious questions existed about the certificate of occupancy’s authenticity and accuracy.
The court ordered Plaintiff to file any pre-motion letter anticipating a motion for judgment on the pleadings by February 11, 2021. Defendant was ordered to file a responsive letter by February 18, 2021. After receiving those letters, the court said it would set a briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and any related motion to stay. The court also stated that a revised civil case management plan and scheduling order would issue separately.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order did not decide the parties’ anticipated motions for judgment on the pleadings, any motion to stay, or the underlying claims. Its ruling on judicial notice was based on concerns about the certificate’s authenticity and accuracy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.