Pateman v. The City of White Plains
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-06156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pateman v. The City of White Plains, Judge Halpern set trial-date procedures after a defendant reported military duty, without expressly granting or denying the stay request.
The order affected Charles Pateman, the City of White Plains, Lieutenant Edward Robinson, Sergeant LaValle Larrier, Officer Paul Wenzel, and the scheduling of their trial.
What happened
Pateman v. The City of White Plains concerns defendants’ request to delay trial because Officer Paul Wenzel, a United States Army Reserve captain, was scheduled for active military duty beginning March 24, 2021. The defendants said he would be unavailable for court until September 2021.
The defendants asked the court to stay the trial for all defendants under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. They argued that Wenzel had played a central role in the events underlying Charles Pateman’s excessive-force and negligence claims and that the other defendants would be harmed if trial proceeded without him. Pateman opposed the request.
Judge Halpern directed the court to use a jury-panel request form for the fourth quarter of 2021 and required the parties to notify the court by August 2, 2021, about their availability for trial between October 1 and December 31, 2021. The provided text does not expressly state that the stay request was granted or denied, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries concerning the request and opposition.
The detailed version
- Pateman v. The City of White Plains · No. 7:17-cv-06156
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
The defendants’ counsel asked the court to stay the trial under Section 3932 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a federal law that can require a civil case to be paused when a servicemember’s military duties materially prevent attendance. The request concerned Officer Paul Wenzel, who had retired from the White Plains Police Department and was serving as a captain in the United States Army Reserve.
According to the defendants’ submission, Wenzel had orders to report for active military duty on March 24, 2021, and would not be available to appear in court until September 2021. The defendants stated that the plaintiff asserted federal and state excessive-force claims and negligence claims against Wenzel and sought to hold the City of White Plains responsible under a legal theory making an employer responsible for an employee’s conduct. They also argued that Wenzel’s absence would prejudice the other defendants because he had been centrally involved in the events at issue.
The Parties’ Positions
The defendants asked that the trial be stayed as to Wenzel and the other defendants until at least September 2021. They relied on a memorandum from Wenzel’s commanding officer and argued that the statutory requirements for a stay were satisfied. The provided text states that Pateman opposed the defendants’ request, but it does not describe the substance of that opposition.
Court’s Action
The order states that, after directing the parties to submit trial information for the second quarter of 2021, the court would use a jury-panel request form for the fourth quarter of 2021. The parties were directed to submit, by August 2, 2021, a letter identifying dates on which they were available for trial between October 1 and December 31, 2021. The Clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries associated with the defendants’ February 5 request and Pateman’s February 10 opposition.
The provided text does not expressly say that the court granted or denied the requested stay. It instead records the court’s trial-scheduling instructions. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on February 11, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.