Antipova v. CareMount Medical P.C.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07453
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Antipova v. CareMount Medical P.C., Judge Cronan overruled Antipova’s late objection to a magistrate judge’s income-tax-return disclosure order.
Yelena Antipova’s challenge to the order concerning disclosure of her income tax returns was overruled; the opinion also names CareMount Medical P.C. and other defendants.
What happened
Yelena Antipova, representing herself, objected to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses’s order concerning disclosure of her income tax returns after an October 3, 2022 conference. She filed the objection on November 10, 2022, identifying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46 as the basis.
Judge John P. Cronan treated the filing as an objection under Rule 72(a), which governs challenges to a magistrate judge’s non-final orders. That rule generally requires an objection within 14 days; Antipova filed hers 38 days after the challenged order.
In Antipova v. CareMount Medical P.C., Judge Cronan ruled that the objection was untimely and overruled it. The opinion did not address the underlying income-tax-return disclosure issue.
The detailed version
- Antipova v. CareMount Medical P.C. · No. 1:21-cv-07453
- John Cronan
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
Yelena Antipova, who was representing herself, filed an objection to an order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses at an October 3, 2022 conference. The order concerned disclosure of Antipova’s income tax returns. Antipova filed her objection on November 10, 2022, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46.
Applicable Rule
The court construed Antipova’s filing as an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). That rule allows a party to challenge a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order. The district judge must change or set aside part of such an order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Rule 72(a) requires the objection to be filed within 14 days of the order.
Ruling
The court found that Antipova filed her objection 38 days after the challenged order, rather than within the required 14-day period. The court therefore overruled the objection. The opinion did not reach the underlying issue of whether the income tax returns had to be disclosed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.