Cameron N. Verdi v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-00791
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Verdi v. FDIC, Judge Tarnofsky granted individual defendants’ request to excuse scheduling deadlines because they had not been served.
The ruling affected individual defendants Stephen Wyremski, Joseph DePaolo, and Eric Howell by excusing them from the February 7 scheduling order’s directives to the extent an order was needed. It did not alter deadlines for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Signature Bank.
What happened
Cameron N. Verdi sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Signature Bank and other defendants. The individual defendants—Stephen Wyremski, Joseph DePaolo, and Eric Howell—asked the court to excuse them from deadlines in the scheduling order because they had not been served. Verdi did not object.
The case was transferred from the Central District of California to the Southern District of New York. The individual defendants had not been served in either court. Their lawyers argued that, because service had not occurred, the time to respond to the complaint had not begun.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the individual defendants’ application to the extent an order was needed to excuse them from the February 7 scheduling order’s directives. The ruling concerned only those individual defendants and did not alter deadlines for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Signature Bank.
The detailed version
- Cameron N. Verdi v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-00791
- Tarnofsky
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
The defendants’ counsel asked the court to vacate, as to Stephen Wyremski, Joseph DePaolo, and Eric Howell, the deadlines in the court’s February 7, 2024 scheduling order. The requested deadlines included February 19, 2024, for responding to the complaint, and March 12, 2024, for the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). The request also covered any other deadlines set by the court that related to the individual defendants. Plaintiff Cameron N. Verdi did not object.
The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 14, 2023, and was transferred to the Southern District of New York on February 2, 2024. The application stated that the individual defendants had not been served in either action. Their counsel argued that the period for responding to the complaint had therefore not started.
Court’s Action
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky wrote that it was not clear whether defendants who had not been served needed an order excusing them from the scheduling order. She nevertheless stated that, to the extent such an order was needed, the individual defendants’ application was GRANTED. The application was made only on behalf of Wyremski, DePaolo, and Howell and did not seek to change deadlines for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Signature Bank.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.