Platsky v. New York Police Department
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-09681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Platsky v. New York Police Department, Magistrate Judge Figueredo converted a conference to a telephone call and extended two defendants’ response deadline.
The order affected Henry Platsky, defendant Takkeung Wong, and defendants John Soto and Jermaine Oden by changing the conference format and extending Soto’s and Oden’s response deadlines.
What happened
In Henry Platsky v. New York City Police Department, a lawyer for defendant Takkeung Wong asked to change the upcoming case-management conference and extend John Soto’s and Jermaine Oden’s deadlines to respond to the complaint. The lawyer said counsel had been unable to meet and confer with Platsky and that the City’s Law Department was still deciding whether to represent Soto and Oden.
The lawyer also explained that the docket did not yet show service on Soto and Oden and that the representation process required additional time. The request sought an extension until September 1, 2023.
The court directed the parties to attend the August 2, 2023 conference by telephone, extended Soto’s and Oden’s deadlines to respond to the complaint until September 1, 2023, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 25. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order.
The detailed version
- Platsky v. New York Police Department · No. 1:22-cv-09681
- James Oetken
- July 28, 2023
Background
An Assistant Corporation Counsel representing defendant Takkeung Wong asked the court to change the format or scheduling of an August 2, 2023 initial case-management conference. The lawyer also asked for an extension until September 1, 2023, for defendants John Soto and Jermaine Oden to respond to the complaint. The application stated that counsel did not yet represent Soto or Oden and was not making the request on their behalf.
Counsel said that, beginning July 13, 2023, the lawyer had tried more than six times to contact Henry Platsky by telephone, left voicemails, and sent a letter. Platsky responded by letter, but the parties had not completed the required discussion before the conference. Counsel also stated that the docket did not show that Soto and Oden had been served, even though the City had received notice that they were allegedly served on June 23 and June 27, 2023.
Counsel explained that the Corporation Counsel’s Office needed to review the case to decide whether it would represent Soto and Oden under New York law. If the office agreed to represent them, each defendant would also need to decide whether to accept that representation and provide written authorization. Counsel said the additional time would allow those decisions and permit the defendants a fair opportunity to respond.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the parties to call Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s telephone conference line at the scheduled time on August 2,
- It extended Soto’s and Oden’s deadlines to respond to the complaint until September 1,
- The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
- The order did not decide the merits of Platsky’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.