Dikambi v. City University of New York

Background

The case is an employment-discrimination action in which Judith Dikambi claims that Dr. Carlton J. Adams subjected her to a hostile work environment. Adams filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial because the moving party contends that no genuine dispute over a material fact requires a trial. In support of that motion, Adams filed a 91-paragraph statement of allegedly undisputed material facts.

Dikambi responded to Adams’s factual statement and filed a separate counterstatement containing 138 statements. Adams argued that the counterstatement violated Local Civil Rule 56.1 because it was not short and concise, instead presenting a lengthy narrative and legal arguments. He asked the court to strike the counterstatement and require Dikambi to file a new one. He also asked the court to pause his deadline for filing a reply and responding to Dikambi’s factual responses while the motion to strike was pending.

Ruling

The court stated that it would consider Adams’s motion to strike Dikambi’s Rule 56.1 counterstatement together with Adams’s motion for summary judgment. The court therefore did not rule in this order on whether the counterstatement should be struck. The court denied Adams’s motion to stay, meaning his request to pause the briefing deadline was denied. Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that Adams could seek an extension of time to file his reply and response if he had a good-faith basis to do so.

Effect

The order left the motion to strike unresolved and did not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims or the summary-judgment motion. It specifically denied only the request to pause the briefing schedule.