La Spina v. U.S. Attorney's Office
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-01556
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In La Spina v. United States Attorney’s Office, Judge Koeltl ordered further briefing on jurisdiction, restitution, and Treasury offsets before deciding the pending motions.
Lawrence La Spina and the United States Attorney’s Office, Financial Litigation Office; the order also directs the Clerk’s Office to mail the order and attachments to La Spina.
What happened
In Lawrence La Spina v. United States Attorney’s Office, Financial Litigation Office, the defendant had moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The court did not decide either motion in this order.
The court directed the defendant to provide Lawrence La Spina with copies of Local Rules 56.1 and 56.2 and to brief questions about jurisdiction, whether the United States Attorney’s Office was a proper defendant, whether the case belonged in the criminal case, and issues concerning the restitution installment plan and referral of the debt to the Treasury Offset Program. La Spina could submit evidence and respond by April 29, 2022; the defendant could reply by May 6, 2022.
Judge John G. Koeltl ordered the additional briefing and stated that the pending motions would then be fully briefed. The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order and its attachments to La Spina’s last known address and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- La Spina v. U.S. Attorney's Office · No. 1:21-cv-01556
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 7, 2022
Nature of the order
This is a case-management and briefing order. The opinion does not resolve the defendant’s motion to dismiss or its alternative motion for summary judgment.
Directions to the defendant
Because the defendant moved in the alternative for summary judgment, the court directed the defendant to provide La Spina with copies of Local Rule 56.2 and Local Rule 56.1 by April 15, 2022. Local Rule 56.1 concerns statements of material facts in summary-judgment proceedings, and Local Rule 56.2 concerns notice to a party opposing summary judgment.
The court also directed the defendant to brief three groups of issues by April 15, 2022:
- The basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, whether the United States Attorney’s Office was a proper defendant, whether jurisdiction existed under the Federal Tort Claims Act or Administrative Procedure Act, and whether La Spina’s complaint should instead be presented as a motion in the criminal case.
- Whether the restitution order’s installment plan expired when La Spina completed his supervised-release term.
- Whether La Spina could be considered delinquent on restitution payments, and therefore subject to referral to the Treasury Offset Program, if he was facially complying with the installment plan.
The order cites decisions addressing whether the government may use the Treasury Offset Program to collect restitution when a person is complying with a court-ordered installment plan. Those cited decisions are not rulings in La Spina’s case.
Directions to the plaintiff and next steps
La Spina could file additional evidence, a response to the defendant’s statement under Local Rule 56.1, and a response to the defendant’s additional briefing by April 29, 2022. The defendant could reply by May 6, 2022. The court stated that the motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary judgment would then be fully briefed.
The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail a copy of the order and attachments to La Spina’s last known address and note service on the docket. Judge John G. Koeltl did not grant or deny either pending motion in this order.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.