Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Background

Charmaine Cooke filed two actions against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. in New York State Court in Bronx County. The complaints assert, among other claims, discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Consolidated Edison removed both actions to the U.S. District Court under federal-question jurisdiction. The cases were consolidated, and the court addressed several motions filed by Cooke, who was representing herself.

Rulings on Cooke’s Motions

1. Remand or transfer. Cooke asked the court to return the actions to state court. The court denied the motions, concluding that Consolidated Edison timely removed the cases and was entitled to do so because the complaints included federal-law claims and related state-law claims within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

2. Certificate of default. Cooke sought approval of a certificate stating that Consolidated Edison had defaulted in the 24-CV-536 action. The court denied the motion. It explained that Consolidated Edison’s deadline to respond had been stayed while the parties awaited an initial pretrial conference, and that the conference had not yet occurred. The court also stated that any argument concerning a late response in state court was moot because the removal notices were timely.

3. Proposed case management plan. Cooke moved several times to dismiss Consolidated Edison’s proposed case management plan. The court stated that the previously proposed dates had become obsolete and that the motions were moot. It therefore denied the motions.

4. Amendment of the complaints. Cooke moved to amend both complaints, citing omissions, incorrect dates, and other errors. She did not attach proposed amended complaints or documents identifying the proposed changes. The court denied the motions without prejudice to renewed motions that include both required documents. The court directed Cooke to renew the motions by May 15, 2024. Until then, Consolidated Edison did not have to respond to the original complaints. The order explained when Consolidated Edison would have to respond depending on whether an amended complaint was allowed.

5. Extension to retain an attorney. The court stated that Cooke’s February 16, 2024 motion to extend the time to retain an attorney had been superseded by a later motion that the court had already resolved. The earlier motion therefore should be terminated.

Motions to Reconsider the Scheduling Order

Cooke also asked the court to reconsider, or “reverse,” an earlier order that had set an April 22, 2024 telephone initial case management conference and warned that the cases could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if she did not appear either by herself or through counsel. She asked the court to postpone the proceedings indefinitely while she sought counsel. In support, she submitted an unsworn note from a psychologist, an earlier psychologist’s note, and a medical record concerning a shoulder condition. She also stated that she had not timely received requested materials from the court’s office for people representing themselves.

The court denied reconsideration. It found that Cooke had not identified overlooked law or facts, an intervening change in law, or another basis for reconsideration. Although the court recognized her reported difficulties, it noted that she had filed numerous orderly and understandable papers and that no doctor had stated that she could not participate in a telephone conference. The court also declined to postpone the proceedings indefinitely until she obtained counsel, while providing information about a legal-assistance clinic and noting that the clinic might not be able to help.

Disposition

The court denied the remand or transfer motions, the motion for approval of a certificate of default, the motions concerning the proposed case management plan, and the motions to reconsider. It denied the motions to amend without prejudice and set a deadline for renewed motions. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions, including the superseded motion to extend the time to retain an attorney. The April 22 telephone conference was to proceed, with the modification that the parties did not need to meet and confer or file a case management plan or schedule beforehand. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.