Reeves v. CMP Consultants, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reeves v. CMP Consultants, Judge Rearden denied CMP’s and Dermot’s dismissal motions without prejudice and denied CMP’s judicial-notice motion as moot.
Michael Reeves, who was representing himself, may oppose any renewed dismissal motions. CMP Consultants, Inc., Marita Ponce, Orlando Ponce, Dermot Realty Management Company, Inc., and 101 West End REIT, LLC may renew their motions after serving the required notice.
What happened
In Reeves v. CMP Consultants, Inc., CMP Consultants, Inc., Marita Ponce, Orlando Ponce, Dermot Realty Management Company, Inc., and 101 West End REIT, LLC moved to dismiss Michael Reeves’s Second Amended Complaint. Reeves was representing himself.
The defendants relied partly on materials outside the complaint, including exhibits and a request for the court to recognize a state agency’s determination. Because those materials could cause the dismissal motions to be treated as summary-judgment motions, the defendants were required to give Reeves a specific notice explaining the consequences and the materials he could submit. They did not provide that notice.
Judge Rearden denied both dismissal motions without prejudice because the defendants had not complied with the required notice rule. The court did not decide the merits of Reeves’s claims. It also denied CMP’s request for judicial notice as moot, meaning the request no longer required a ruling at that stage. The defendants could renew their motions by April 15, 2024, after serving the required notice.
The detailed version
- Reeves v. CMP Consultants, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01308
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2024
Background
Michael Reeves sued CMP Consultants, Inc., Marita Ponce, Orlando Ponce, Dermot Realty Management Company, Inc., and 101 West End REIT, LLC. CMP Consultants, Inc., Marita Ponce, and Orlando Ponce were referred to collectively as “CMP.” Dermot Realty Management Company, Inc. and 101 West End REIT, LLC were referred to collectively as “Dermot.” CMP and Dermot moved to dismiss Reeves’s Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
CMP attached 15 exhibits to its motion, and Dermot attached nine exhibits. CMP also asked the court to take judicial notice of a determination and order issued by the New York State Division of Human Rights. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts or documents without requiring ordinary proof.
Notice requirement
When a court considers materials outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and does not exclude them, Rule 12(d) requires the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is a decision based on evidence showing whether a claim can proceed, rather than only on the complaint’s allegations.
Because Reeves was proceeding without a lawyer, the defendants were required by Southern District of New York Local Rule 12.1 to serve and file a notice explaining the meaning and consequences of a possible conversion to summary judgment, along with the text of Rule 56. The opinion states that neither CMP nor Dermot served or filed the required notice.
Rulings
The court held that the defendants’ failure to comply with Local Rule 12.1 was a procedural defect that it could not excuse in light of Reeves’s self-represented status. Accordingly, the court denied CMP’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to later renewal after compliance with the rule. It also denied Dermot’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to later renewal after compliance.
The court denied CMP’s motion for judicial notice as moot because the court had denied CMP’s motion to dismiss. If CMP renewed its dismissal motion in compliance with Local Rule 12.1, it could refile the judicial-notice motion. The court directed CMP and Dermot to renew their respective motions by April 15, 2024, and to serve and file the required notice. Reeves could oppose the motions by May 13, 2024, and the defendants could file replies by May 20, 2024. The order did not decide whether Reeves’s claims had merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.