Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 18, 2023

Franco v. American Airlines, Inc.

Judge
Willis
Docket
1:21-cv-05918
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Franco v. American Airlines, Judge Willis accepted Franco’s additional filings, canceled oral argument, and requested an exhibit list from American Airlines.

Who this affects

Justin Franco and American Airlines, Inc.; the order also affected the handling of Franco’s filings and the scheduled oral argument.

What happened

In Franco v. American Airlines, Inc., Justin Franco told the court that an unexpected health concern would prevent him from attending that day’s oral argument. He also submitted a revised reply, a Rule 56.1 statement, objections, and affidavits.

Although the court noted that the local rules generally do not allow sur-replies and require a Rule 56.1 statement to accompany an opposition to summary judgment, it decided to accept Franco’s revised filings. The court accepted the revised statement, sur-reply, and affidavits instead of holding oral argument.

Judge Jennifer E. Willis canceled the oral argument and asked American Airlines to submit, by November 1, a chart or list identifying each exhibit in docket entry 82 and the memoranda of law. The order did not decide the summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Franco v. American Airlines, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05918
Judge
Willis
Date
Oct. 18, 2023

Background

The court’s pro se intake office received a letter from Justin Franco on the morning scheduled for oral argument. Franco said that an unexpected health concern prevented him from attending. He also said he was submitting a revised reply, a revised statement required by Local Rule 56.1, a list of objections, and additional affidavits.

Court’s Analysis

The court noted that Local Rule 6.1(b) generally does not permit a sur-reply, which is an additional written response after the usual briefing. It also noted that Local Rule 56.1(b) requires the Rule 56.1 statement to be submitted with the opposition to a summary-judgment motion. The court nevertheless recognized that people representing themselves without lawyers receive more lenient treatment and that courts prefer to resolve disputes on their merits.

Ruling

The court accepted Franco’s revised Rule 56.1 statement, sur-reply, and affidavits, even though the papers were not in the exact form required by the local rules. It canceled that day’s oral argument instead of holding it. Separately, the court requested that American Airlines submit a letter by November 1 with a chart or list identifying each exhibit in docket entry 82 and the exhibits referenced in the legal memoranda. This order did not rule on the underlying summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.