Harriram v. Fera
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-03696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harriram v. Fera, Judge Abrams accepted Harriram’s letter as a sur-reply and sought clarification about adding CUNY.
Priya Harriram, Joseph Luis Fera, Lehman College, and potentially the City University of New York, whose proposed addition as a defendant was left for Harriram to clarify.
What happened
In Harriram v. Fera, Priya Harriram, representing herself, submitted a letter supporting her opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and asking to add the City University of New York as a defendant. The defendants objected, arguing that the letter raised new allegations and that adding CUNY was unnecessary because Lehman College lacked a separate corporate existence.
The court accepted Harriram’s letter as a sur-reply, meaning an additional written response. The court directed Harriram to tell it whether she still wanted to add CUNY and allowed the defendants to respond to the sur-reply. The order does not state whether CUNY was added or decide the motion to dismiss.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that the case would proceed to mediation, because the court had been unable to obtain limited free legal representation for Harriram. Harriram would continue representing herself during mediation, and the Clerk was directed to mail her a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Harriram v. Fera · No. 1:21-cv-03696
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
Priya Harriram filed a letter seeking to provide additional information in support of her opposition to Joseph Luis Fera and Lehman College’s motion to dismiss. She also sought to add the City University of New York (CUNY) as a defendant. The defendants asked the court to deny the request, arguing that the letter improperly raised allegations not included in Harriram’s amended complaint. They also argued that adding CUNY was unnecessary because, according to their position, Lehman College does not have a corporate existence separate from CUNY.
Court’s action on the letter
The court explained that, when a person represents herself, courts may consider facts raised for the first time in opposition to a motion to dismiss and must read her submissions liberally. Based on those considerations, the court accepted Harriram’s letter as a sur-reply, meaning an additional response to the defendants’ filing. Because of the defendants’ position regarding Lehman College and CUNY, the court directed Harriram to advise whether she still sought to add CUNY as a defendant. The order also states that the defendants could respond to the sur-reply, but the relevant sentence is incomplete in the provided opinion text.
Mediation and disposition
The court noted that it had referred the case to mediation on November 8, 2021. It had been unable to obtain limited free legal counsel for Harriram, so the case would proceed to mediation with Harriram continuing to represent herself. Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Harriram a copy of the order. The provided order does not state that CUNY was added as a defendant and does not state the outcome of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.