Al Saidi v. United States of America
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-01978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Al Saidi v. United States, Judge Vyskocil denied plaintiffs’ emergency motion without prejudice because it lacked a required legal memorandum.
Sadam Jhalid Ali Al Saidi and 1681 Deli Grocery Corp.; the court’s ruling concerned their emergency request to stay their disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
What happened
In Al Saidi v. United States of America, Sadam Jhalid Ali Al Saidi and 1681 Deli Grocery Corp. asked the court to temporarily stop their disqualification from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The court said the emergency motion did not include the legal memorandum required by Local Civil Rule 7.1. The court therefore denied the motion without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to file a proper application.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the docket entry for the emergency motion. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs should remain disqualified from the program.
The detailed version
- Al Saidi v. United States of America · No. 1:21-cv-01978
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
Sadam Jhalid Ali Al Saidi and 1681 Deli Grocery Corp. sued the United States of America, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Nutrition Service. They filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction—a request for a temporary court order—to stay their disqualification from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Reason for the ruling
Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires motions to include a memorandum of law explaining the legal authorities supporting the request. The plaintiffs’ emergency motion did not include that memorandum. The court stated that this defect alone was enough to support granting or denying the motion.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion without prejudice and with leave to refile a proper application complying with Local Civil Rule 7.1. The order did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ request to stop their disqualification. The Clerk of Court was asked to terminate docket entry 2.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.