Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-05951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation, Judge Torres allowed Plaintiff’s disputed-facts statement and permitted Defendants to respond.
Lia Tieu and Defendants New York City Economic Development Corporation, Winthrop Hoyt, and Rachel Loeb; the order governs the parties’ summary-judgment filings.
What happened
In Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was pending. Before deciding that motion, the Court considered Defendants’ request to disregard Plaintiff’s separate statement of disputed facts.
The Court concluded that the local rule allowed Plaintiff to file a separate statement of additional material facts. The Court therefore said it would consider Plaintiff’s statement and allowed Defendants to respond by December 14, 2023.
Judge Torres did not decide the summary-judgment motion in this order. She addressed only the parties’ filings about disputed facts and Defendants’ opportunity to respond.
The detailed version
- Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-05951
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 28, 2023
Background
Lia Tieu sued New York City Economic Development Corporation, Winthrop Hoyt, and Rachel Loeb. Defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure for deciding a case when the moving party argues that no genuine factual dispute requires a trial. The motion was still pending when the Court issued this order.
Dispute About the Facts Statement
Defendants asked the Court to disregard Tieu’s separate statement of disputed facts. They argued that Local Rule 56.1(b) required Tieu to include disputed facts in her response to Defendants’ statement of material facts rather than file a separate document.
The Court rejected that argument. It read Local Rule 56.1(b) as allowing the opposing party to submit separate, short, and concise paragraphs identifying additional material facts that the party contends create a genuine issue for trial. The Court held that the rule did not require those paragraphs to appear in the same document as the responses to the moving party’s statement.
Ruling
The Court stated that it would consider Tieu’s Rule 56.1 statement when deciding the summary-judgment motion. In the alternative, Defendants asked for an opportunity to respond to that statement. The Court allowed Defendants to respond by December 14, 2023.
This order did not decide the merits of Defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.