Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-04022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Levy v. Law Offices of J. Henry Nierman, Judge Roman granted defendants leave to seek dismissal for lack of standing and set briefing deadlines.
Levy and the defendants are affected: defendants may file the proposed standing motion, and both sides must follow the court’s briefing and filing schedule.
What happened
Levy v. Law Offices of J. Henry Nierman concerns defendants’ request to file a motion arguing that Levy lacks constitutional standing to pursue the case. Levy opposed permission, arguing that evidence from a damages hearing showed he suffered emotional distress from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The parties disagreed about whether the standing issue had previously been addressed and whether Levy had shown a concrete injury. The court’s order did not decide whether Levy has standing or whether the defendants’ proposed motion would succeed.
Judge Roman waived the required pre-motion conference and granted defendants leave to file the motion. He set deadlines for the parties’ papers and directed that all motion papers be filed by January 4, 2024; the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127.
The detailed version
- Levy v. Law Offices Of J. Henry Nierman · No. 7:17-cv-04022
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
Defendants Law Offices of J. Henry Nierman, J. Henry Nierman, and Recovery of Judgment LLC asked for permission to file a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Plaintiff Levy opposed that request.
The parties’ letters described a dispute about whether the standing issue had been addressed earlier in the case. Defendants argued that the issue had not been briefed and that Levy had not shown a concrete injury. Levy argued that evidence from the damages inquest showed he suffered emotional distress after receiving a letter and purported subpoena that allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Levy’s counsel also argued that the alleged violations had already been found and that the proposed standing motion was a late effort to delay the damages proceedings.
What the Court Decided
The court did not decide whether Levy has Article III standing, whether he suffered a concrete injury, or whether defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss would succeed. Instead, it ruled only on whether defendants could file that motion.
The court waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted defendants leave to file their motion. It set the following schedule:
- Defendants’ moving papers were to be served, but not filed, on November 17,
- - Levy’s opposition papers were to be served, but not filed, on December 20,
- - Defendants’ reply papers were to be served on January 4,
- - All motion papers were to be filed on January 4, 2024.
The court also directed the parties to provide physical and electronic courtesy copies of the papers. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127.
Effect of the Order
The order allowed defendants to present their standing argument in a formal motion. It did not grant or deny the anticipated motion to dismiss and did not resolve the underlying Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims or the damages issue.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.