Carline v. PepsiCo, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-00251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carline v. PepsiCo, Judge Schofield extended Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose Defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Plaintiff Demon Carline and Defendants PepsiCo, Inc. and the other defendants were affected by the revised briefing schedule.
What happened
Carline v. PepsiCo, Inc. concerns Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by the June 1, 2023 deadline.
Judge Schofield ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition of no more than 25 pages by June 9, 2023. If Plaintiff did not file one, the motion would be treated as unopposed.
The order also gave Defendants until June 20, 2023, to file a reply if Plaintiff filed an opposition. Judge Schofield did not decide the summary-judgment motion; she explained that the court would still consider its merits and that Defendants would still have to show they were entitled to judgment.
The detailed version
- Carline v. PepsiCo, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00251
- Lorna Schofield
- June 5, 2023
Background
An earlier order set a schedule for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when the law and undisputed facts require judgment for one side. Plaintiff’s opposition was due June 1, 2023, but Plaintiff had not filed it by the date of this order.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition of no more than 25 pages by June 9, 2023. The court stated that if Plaintiff failed to file the opposition, Defendants’ motion would be treated as unopposed. If Plaintiff filed an opposition, Defendants were ordered to file a reply of no more than 10 pages by June 20, 2023.
Legal standard and effect
The order explained that an unopposed summary-judgment motion is not automatically granted. The court must consider the motion’s merits, and the motion must fail if the undisputed facts do not show that the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. Defendants would still bear the burden of showing that no genuine dispute about a material fact existed.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield set new briefing deadlines and did not rule on the summary-judgment motion itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.