Lurch, Jr. v. Chaput, MD
- Analisa Torres
- 1:16-cv-02517
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lurch, Jr. v. Chaput, Judge Torres denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice because they omitted a required factual statement.
The ruling affected defendants MD France Chaput and RN Maria Marquez by requiring them to comply with the local factual-statement rule before renewing their motion, and affected plaintiff Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. by setting deadlines for his response.
What happened
In Lurch, Jr. v. Chaput, the defendants asked the court to grant summary judgment, which would resolve the case without a trial based on the record. The plaintiff was representing himself without a lawyer.
The court found that the defendants had not filed the separate, numbered statement of material facts required by the court’s local rules. The court had waived a different filing requirement but had not waived this factual-statement requirement.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the summary-judgment motion without prejudice to renewal. She ordered the defendants to send the required statement to the plaintiff, set deadlines for the plaintiff’s response and the defendants’ renewed motion, and directed the Clerk to terminate the existing motion.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. Chaput, MD · No. 1:16-cv-02517
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
Defendants MD France Chaput and RN Maria Marquez filed a motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 222. Plaintiff Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously waived the requirement that defendants file pre-motion letters, but it had not waived the separate requirement under Local Civil Rule 56.1(a).
Reason for the Ruling
Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) requires a party moving for summary judgment to attach a short, numbered statement identifying the material facts that the moving party contends are not genuinely disputed. The opposing party must respond to each numbered paragraph and may provide additional statements of disputed facts.
The court found that defendants failed to comply with the requirement to file a Rule 56.1 statement. It declined to excuse the failure because defendants were represented by counsel and plaintiff was proceeding without a lawyer. The court cited the interest of justice in declining to excuse the noncompliance.
Disposition and Deadlines
The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal. It ordered defendants to send plaintiff their Rule 56.1 statement by March 19, 2021. Plaintiff had until April 2, 2021, to respond and include any additional counterstatements. Defendants had until April 9, 2021, to file an updated summary-judgment motion; plaintiff had until April 30, 2021, to file opposition papers; and defendants had until May 14, 2021, to file reply papers, if any.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 222 and mail a copy of the order to plaintiff. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits. Judge Analisa Torres signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.