Fullewellen v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-07219
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fullewellen v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil denied the City’s extension request and kept its motion-to-dismiss deadline at March 14, 2022.
The City of New York must file its motion to dismiss by March 14, 2022 and file proof of service by mail at Larry Fullewellen’s last known address. Larry Fullewellen was sent a copy of the order at the address of record.
What happened
In Fullewellen v. City of New York, the City asked for two more weeks to file its motion to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s complaint.
The City said the plaintiff had changed his address without updating the court, causing mailed correspondence to be returned as undeliverable. The court had previously warned the plaintiff that he had to report an address change and that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the City’s request. She kept the motion-to-dismiss deadline at March 14, 2022, and required the City to file proof that it served the motion by mail at the plaintiff’s last known address.
The detailed version
- Fullewellen v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-07219
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 10, 2022
Background
The Court had established a briefing schedule for the City of New York’s motion to dismiss Larry Fullewellen’s complaint. The motion was due on March 14, 2022. The plaintiff was proceeding without a lawyer.
The City requested a two-week extension. It stated that the plaintiff had changed his address but had not updated his service address on the docket, so mailed correspondence was returned as undeliverable. The Court noted that its September 14, 2021 Order of Service had warned the plaintiff that he had to notify the Court in writing of any address change and that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Ruling
The Court denied the City’s extension request. It ordered that the City’s motion to dismiss remain due on March 14, 2022. The City also had to file an affidavit of service showing that it mailed the motion to the plaintiff’s last known address. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Effect of the Order
The ruling concerned only the deadline-extension request and service of the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was asked to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff at the address of record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.