Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-11253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lurch, Jr. v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Parker ordered service on two officers and granted a stay of the officers’ response deadline.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. and the four officer defendants, including Officers Christopher Freda and Paul Clark, whose service and response deadlines were addressed.
What happened
In Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. v. City of New York, et al., the City identified Officers Christopher Freda and Paul Clark as two officers involved in the incident described in the complaint. The court replaced two John Doe defendants with those officers and directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to handle service because Lurch was proceeding without a lawyer and had court permission to proceed without paying the usual fees.
The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued. It also stayed the deadline for all four officer defendants—including Officers Whiting and Fornasar—to answer or otherwise object to the operative complaint until 30 days after Freda and Clark were served. The court warned Lurch that failing to participate in discovery or attend future conferences could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the officers’ letter motion to stay and ordered the Clerk to issue the summons and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The order did not decide the expected motion to dismiss or the merits of Lurch’s claims.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11253
- Alison Nathan
- May 7, 2021
Background
The complaint described an October 13, 2019 incident and initially identified some officers as John Doe defendants. The City of New York identified Officers Christopher Freda and Paul Clark as two officers involved in that incident. The court therefore directed that Freda and Clark replace two John Doe defendants and that they be added to the docket.
The opinion states that Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fees. Under those circumstances, the court and the U.S. Marshals Service would arrange service. Because Lurch could not serve the newly identified officers before they were identified, the court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons was issued.
Motion to stay
Counsel for the officer defendants told the court that the New York City Law Department expected to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim, on behalf of all four officer defendants. The court found that the grounds for dismissal would likely overlap and that a single consolidated motion would avoid duplicative motion practice.
The court therefore granted the officers’ letter motion to stay. It stayed the time for all officer defendants to answer or otherwise object to the operative complaint until 30 days after Freda and Clark were served.
Service and warning
The court instructed the Clerk to complete the U.S. Marshals Service process form, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on Freda and Clark. The court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to Lurch at his latest address of record.
The court noted that Lurch had failed to participate in discovery and had not attended a previously scheduled case-management conference. It warned that failure to respond to document requests or interrogatories, or failure to attend future court conferences, could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Defendants’ letter motion to stay. The order addressed service and the timing of the officers’ response; it did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss or decide the merits of Lurch’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.