Zhang v. The City of New York
- P. Castel
- 1:17-cv-05415
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zhang v. The City of New York, plaintiffs asked Judge Castel for more time and opposed summary judgment before municipal-liability discovery.
The plaintiffs sought more time and discovery concerning their surviving Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims; the defendants would be affected by any decision about the requested discovery and their proposed summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Zhang v. The City of New York is a letter from the plaintiffs’ lawyer about a pending civil-rights case. The letter concerns the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims under a federal civil-rights law against municipal and other defendants.
The plaintiffs asked for seven additional days, until January 12, 2023, to file a formal request for reconsideration. They also argued that defendants should not seek summary judgment on the surviving claims before the plaintiffs received discovery about possible municipal liability, commonly called municipal-liability or Monell discovery.
The provided text does not show a ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel on either request. It therefore records the plaintiffs’ requests and arguments, not a court-ordered outcome.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. The City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-05415
- P. Castel
- Jan. 5, 2023
Nature of the document
The provided text is a letter motion submitted by David Yan on behalf of the plaintiffs. It asks for additional time to file a motion for reconsideration and argues that defendants should not be allowed to seek summary judgment before certain discovery occurs. The text does not contain a court order resolving those requests.
Background described in the filing
The filing says that plaintiffs previously moved for reconsideration of the court’s December 22, 2022 Opinion and Order. According to the filing, that earlier order allowed defendants to move for summary judgment without first allowing the plaintiffs to obtain discovery concerning their municipal-liability claim. The filing says plaintiffs had submitted earlier requests on December 29 and 30, 2022, and that defendants opposed those requests on January 3, 2023.
The filing also says defendants had previously moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. It states that the court denied dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation against municipal defendants and other named defendants, including CONY, NYCDOC, Rikers, NYCHHC, and Corizon. The filing refers to the municipal-liability claim as a Monell claim.
Plaintiffs’ requests and arguments
The plaintiffs requested a seven-day extension, until January 12, 2023, to file a notice of motion and memorandum under Local Civil Rule 6.3 seeking reconsideration or reargument of the issues raised in their earlier letters.
The plaintiffs also argued that summary judgment would be premature because discovery on their municipal-liability claim had been stayed or bifurcated. They asserted that such discovery was necessary to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate and that defendants should not be permitted to seek summary judgment on the surviving § 1983 claims while refusing to participate in that discovery.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge P. Kevin Castel granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the extension request, the reconsideration request, or the plaintiffs’ objection to summary judgment. The text is therefore a party filing rather than a ruling shown in the provided material.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.