Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-00594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Woodmont Ramapo v. Parks, Judge Briccetti extended deadlines for responding to a remand motion after Parks did not respond.
Woodmont Ramapo, LLC and Anthony Parks. The order changed the deadlines for briefing the motion to remand; it did not decide that motion.
What happened
In Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks, Anthony Parks removed the action from the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo and was representing himself without a lawyer. Woodmont Ramapo, LLC later asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
Parks did not respond by the original deadline. The court extended his response deadline to June 5, 2023, and set June 20, 2023, as the deadline for Woodmont Ramapo, LLC to file a reply, if any. The court did not decide the motion to send the case back to state court.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also stated that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Parks permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order was dated May 11, 2023.
The detailed version
- Woodmont Ramapo, LLC v. Parks · No. 7:23-cv-00594
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 11, 2023
Background
Anthony Parks removed the action from the Justice Court of the Town of Ramapo to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that Parks was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees. Woodmont Ramapo, LLC moved to send the case back to state court.
The court had previously set May 5, 2023, as Parks’s deadline to respond to the motion. The court stated that Parks had not responded by that date.
Order
The court extended Parks’s deadline to respond to the motion to remand to June 5, 2023. A remand sends a case from federal court back to state court. The court also set June 20, 2023, as the deadline for Woodmont Ramapo, LLC to file a reply, if any. The order did not grant or deny the motion to remand.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also stated that it would mail Parks a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it sets briefing deadlines and does not decide whether the case should be returned to state court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.