DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Pirozzi
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-07326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ditech Financial v. Larry C. Pirozzi, Judge Briccetti denied summary judgment without prejudice because plaintiff omitted required notices and facts statement.
Ditech Financial LLC’s summary-judgment motion was denied without prejudice. Larry C. Pirozzi, who was representing himself, was entitled to the required notice before the motion could be considered.
What happened
Ditech Financial LLC sued Larry C. Pirozzi to foreclose a mortgage on real property. Pirozzi filed an answer and was representing himself, while Ditech was represented by counsel.
Ditech asked for summary judgment, but it did not provide the notice required for a self-represented opponent or file the required statement of undisputed facts. The court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing Ditech to file another motion by October 7, 2021, if it chose to do so.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti said the ruling was based only on these procedural defects and did not decide whether Ditech’s summary-judgment motion had merit.
The detailed version
- DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Pirozzi · No. 7:19-cv-07326
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 7, 2021
Background
Ditech Financial LLC brought a mortgage-foreclosure action against Larry C. Pirozzi. The opinion states that Pirozzi was proceeding without a lawyer, had appeared in the action, filed an answer, and asserted affirmative defenses.
Ditech filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. Ditech submitted a notice of motion, a legal memorandum, affidavits, and exhibits. But it did not file a statement of undisputed material facts required by Local Civil Rule 56.1, and it did not serve the notice required by Local Civil Rule 56.2 for a self-represented party opposing summary judgment.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a self-represented litigant may not understand that failing to submit evidence opposing summary judgment can affect the ability to preserve factual disputes for trial. Local Civil Rule 56.2 therefore requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file a specified notice, including the texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1.
Because Ditech was represented and Pirozzi was self-represented, Ditech was responsible for providing that notice. The court concluded that it could not grant Ditech’s motion without risking reversible error. The court also identified Ditech’s failure to file the Local Rule 56.1 statement as an independent procedural reason to deny the motion.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice Ditech’s motion for summary judgment. It directed that Ditech could file a second motion by October 7, 2021, if at all, and reminded Ditech to serve all documents on Pirozzi and comply with the Local Civil Rules. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
The court expressly stated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of Ditech’s motion. The order therefore addressed the two procedural deficiencies rather than deciding whether Ditech was entitled to summary judgment on the foreclosure claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.