Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc.
- Carter
- 1:16-cv-10047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon, Judge Carter ruled the summary-judgment briefing was complete and set a November 9 deadline for a sur-reply request.
Lenora Bromfield, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the defendants’ pending summary-judgment briefing.
What happened
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc., Lenora Bromfield, who was representing herself, asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ reply supporting their request for summary judgment.
The court explained that the motion had already received the required motion, opposition, and reply. A further response, called a sur-reply, is not automatically allowed and requires the court’s permission. The court noted that permission may be appropriate if the reply raises arguments for the first time.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed Bromfield to file a letter explaining why she should be allowed to file a sur-reply by November 9, 2023. The order did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-10047
- Carter
- Nov. 3, 2023
Background
Lenora Bromfield, proceeding without a lawyer, asked for an extension of time to file an “opposition to the defendants’ reply memorandum of law in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” The request was made in a letter dated November 1, 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the Southern District of New York’s local rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Because those filings had been completed, the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was fully briefed.
The court described a sur-reply as an additional response filed after a motion has already been fully briefed. It stated that neither the local rules nor the federal rules give a party an automatic right to file one; the party must first obtain the court’s authorization. The court also explained that sur-replies may be permitted when a reply raises arguments for the first time, but courts may deny permission when the requesting party already knew about the argument or had sufficient opportunity to address it.
Order
The court did not grant authorization to file a sur-reply or decide the summary-judgment motion. Instead, it directed Bromfield to file a letter explaining the basis for seeking authorization by November 9, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.