Starostenko v. UBS AG
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Starostenko v. UBS AG, Judge Failla declined to require a shorter filing but gave defendants more time for their reply.
The order directly affected the pro se plaintiffs, Yuri Starostenko and Irina Tsareva, and the defendants, by allowing the plaintiffs’ oversized opposition to stand while giving defendants an opportunity to request more time and pages for their reply.
What happened
In Starostenko v. UBS AG, the pro se plaintiffs submitted an approximately 55-page response opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss, exceeding the court’s standard page limit by 30 pages. Defendants asked the court to require a shorter response or permission to exceed the limit.
The plaintiffs acknowledged violating the court’s individual rules. They explained that they had quoted extensively from defendants’ filing and case law, and asked to submit up to 32 pages and receive three weeks to prepare a shorter response if required.
Judge Failla declined to order a replacement response, finding that doing so would cause unnecessary delay and provide little benefit. She allowed defendants to request additional time and a modified page limit for their reply, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion concerning the plaintiffs’ filing.
The detailed version
- Starostenko v. UBS AG · No. 1:19-cv-09993
- Katherine Failla
- June 3, 2022
Background
Defendants asked the Court to require Plaintiffs to resubmit a revised opposition memorandum within the applicable page limit, or to seek permission to exceed that limit with an explanation. Plaintiffs, Yuri Starostenko and Irina Tsareva, were proceeding without lawyers. They acknowledged that their opposition violated the Court’s individual rules and explained that they had quoted extensively from Defendants’ motion papers and legal authorities. Plaintiffs asked that any replacement filing be allowed to contain at least 32 pages and that they receive three weeks to prepare it.
The Court stated that the opposition was approximately 55 pages, excluding the cover page and table of authorities, and exceeded the standard page limit by 30 pages. The Court also noted that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with the Court’s rules or directions previously in the case. Although the Court recognized that self-represented parties receive some flexibility, it also stated that Plaintiffs’ conduct had imposed financial and other consequences on Defendants.
Ruling
The Court declined to order Plaintiffs to file an amended memorandum of law. It concluded that such an order would unnecessarily delay the case and provide few, if any, benefits to Defendants or the Court. The Court allowed Defendants additional time to file an extended reply brief and ordered them to submit, by June 10, 2022, a letter requesting a modified due date and page limit. The Court stated that it would grant any reasonable request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 129.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.