Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Murrey v. Ming: Judge Torres granted electronic-filing access, denied amendment without prejudice, and denied judicial notice.
Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey and the defendants in the case, including Aaron Ming.
What happened
In Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Aaron Ming, et al., Murrey asked the court for temporary permission to file documents electronically by email before completing the required electronic-filing class. He also asked to amend his complaint and for the court to recognize attached emails and an article as established facts.
The court granted temporary email filing permission. It denied the request to amend the complaint without prejudice because Murrey had not identified the additional facts he wanted to add. It also denied the request for judicial notice because he had not shown that the materials contained facts generally known in the court’s area or readily verifiable from unquestionable sources.
Judge Analisa Torres also said Murrey could seek permission to amend again by identifying the specific allegations he proposed to add, and directed the clerk to mail him the order. The order addressed filing and pleading-related requests, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc · No. 1:21-cv-00320
- Analisa Torres
- June 23, 2021
Background
The court received Plaintiff Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey’s motion dated April 30, 2021. Although Murrey labeled the motion “ex parte”—meaning submitted without the other side’s participation—he sent it to opposing counsel and filed it on the docket. The court therefore found no reason to decide it without the defendants and considered their opposition.
Rulings
The court granted Murrey’s motion for temporary electronic filing through the specified court email address until he attended the required class for electronic filing.
The court denied without prejudice Murrey’s motion to file an amended complaint. It stated that, without more information about the additional facts Murrey intended to include, it could not determine whether the amendment would be futile. The court said that, if Murrey wished to amend, he had to file a motion requesting permission and stating the specific additional allegations he intended to add.
The court denied Murrey’s motion for judicial notice. Judicial notice is a procedure allowing a court to accept certain facts without requiring ordinary proof. The court found that Murrey had not shown that the facts in the attached emails and article were generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction or could be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned. The court stated that Murrey could include those facts in a proposed amendment if he believed they were relevant and accurate.
Disposition
The court granted the temporary electronic-filing request, denied without prejudice the motion to amend the complaint, and denied the motion for judicial notice. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 93 and mail a copy of the order to Murrey, whom the order identifies as representing himself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.