Derti v. Barg
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-10215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Derti v. Barg, Judge Briccetti denied reconsideration and entered judgment for defendants after Derti failed to file the required second amended complaint.
Naser Derti and the defendants—Sergeant Barg, Eric Gutwein, D. Venetozzi, and Anthony Annucci—were affected; judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor and the case was closed.
What happened
In Derti v. Barg, Naser Derti asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision. The defendants are Sergeant Barg, Eric Gutwein, D. Venetozzi, and Anthony Annucci.
The court had previously dismissed Derti’s amended complaint but allowed him to file a second amended complaint. After granting two extensions, the court set March 15, 2022, as the filing deadline and warned that failing to meet it would lead to judgment for the defendants. Derti did not file the complaint or request another extension.
Judge Vincent Briccetti denied Derti’s motion for reconsideration and entered judgment in the defendants’ favor. The court also closed the case and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Derti v. Barg · No. 7:19-cv-10215
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Derti’s amended complaint. In an October 12, 2021, Opinion and Order, the court gave Derti permission to file a second amended complaint by December 13, 2021, and warned that failing to file it or request more time would be treated as abandoning the case.
The court later granted Derti’s request for an extension through January 18, 2022. On January 18, the court granted a second extension and required Derti to file the second amended complaint by March 15, 2022. The court warned that it generally would not grant another extension without compelling circumstances. The judgment states that Derti did not file a second amended complaint or request more time, and that the court received no returned mail or other indication that he had not received the extension orders.
Rulings
The court denied Derti’s motion for reconsideration. Because the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint had already been granted and Derti did not comply with the final deadline to file a second amended complaint or seek another extension, the court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor and closed the case.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Derti permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.