Dominguez v. City of New York
- Ho
- 1:21-cv-02302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dominguez v. City of New York, Judge Ho granted defendants’ request to extend deadlines for a limited summary-judgment motion.
The defendants and Steven Dominguez were affected by the revised briefing deadlines; the court stated that other deadlines and the trial date were unchanged.
What happened
In Steven Dominguez v. City of New York, defendants asked for one more week to file a limited motion for summary judgment addressing the municipal-liability claim. The request was made with the plaintiff’s consent.
The court set May 6, 2024, for defendants’ motion, June 3, 2024, for the plaintiff’s opposition, and June 10, 2024, for defendants’ reply, if any. The request did not change other deadlines or the August 12, 2024, trial date.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 138.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-02302
- Ho
- Apr. 26, 2024
Background
Defendants City of New York, Officer Battista, Officer Lynch, Lt. Patrick Lynch, Det. Patrick Graney, and Det. Evan Nielsen asked for a one-week extension of the deadline to file a limited summary-judgment motion. The motion would address the plaintiff’s claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The application stated that the plaintiff consented and that this was defendants’ third extension request.
Requested schedule
Defendants requested permission to file the motion by May 6, 2024. The plaintiff’s opposition would be due June 3, 2024, and defendants’ reply would be due June 10, 2024. The request stated that the extension would not affect other deadlines or the August 12, 2024, trial date.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application. The order set the motion deadline as May 6, 2024, the plaintiff’s opposition deadline as June 3, 2024, and defendants’ reply deadline, if any, as June 10, 2024. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 138. The order did not decide the municipal-liability claim or the merits of the proposed motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.