Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brock v. CVS, Judge Briccetti ordered the White Plains defendants to correct summary-judgment notice service; the motion remained undecided.
Terrell K. Brock and the White Plains Defendants—the City of White Plains and the nine named police officers—were affected. The order required the defendants to correct their notice and service before the court considered their summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, the White Plains defendants filed a motion for summary judgment against Terrell K. Brock. The defendants included the City of White Plains and nine police officers. The court’s order indicates that Brock was representing himself.
The defendants served Brock with a notice for people representing themselves who oppose summary judgment and included the full text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. But they did not include the full text of Local Civil Rule 56.1, as required by Local Civil Rule 56.2.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the defendants to serve Brock again with both required rules and to file proof of service by March 28, 2024. The court warned that failing to do so could result in denial of the defendants’ motion. The order did not decide the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 21, 2024
Background
On March 20, 2024, the City of White Plains and Police Officers Jose Luis Formoso, Kevin Beall, Christopher Browning, Elisa DiPaterio, John Glynn, Todd Horgan, Michael Levito, Bradley Schneider, and Michael Vanderwalker—the “White Plains Defendants”—filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving a case without a trial when the applicable legal standards and undisputed facts warrant judgment for a party.
The docket showed that the White Plains Defendants served Terrell K. Brock with a notice for a self-represented litigant opposing summary judgment. They attached the full text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which governs summary judgment, but did not attach the full text of Local Civil Rule 56.1. The court stated that Local Civil Rule 56.2 required both rules to be provided.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the White Plains Defendants to re-serve Brock with notice under Local Civil Rule 56.2 and to attach the full texts of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. The defendants were also ordered to file proof of service on the docket by March 28, 2024.
The court stated that failure to serve and file the required notice could result in denial of the White Plains Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The order did not grant or deny that motion. The court also stated that chambers would mail Brock a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.