Noe v. Ray Realty
- Tarnofsky
- 1:19-cv-01455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Noe v. Ray Realty, Judge Tarnofsky ordered pro se plaintiff Carol Noe to address dismissal of claims against non-appearing defendants.
Carol Noe and the defendants who had not appeared, whose claims and defenses may be addressed in the forthcoming report and recommendation concerning the pending motions to dismiss.
What happened
In Noe v. Ray Realty, Carol Noe, representing herself, sued Ray Realty and numerous other defendants. She alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act and related claims.
Some defendants moved to dismiss. The court said those motions appeared to address the claims against defendants who had not appeared as well, and that a future report and recommendation might address those claims.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered Noe to include, by June 28, 2024, any reasons why the claims against the non-appearing defendants should not be dismissed. The judge cautioned that failing to do so could itself lead to a recommendation that those claims be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Noe v. Ray Realty · No. 1:19-cv-01455
- Tarnofsky
- May 2, 2024
Background
On February 14, 2019, Carol Noe filed a complaint without a lawyer against Ray Realty, several named individuals, and John and Jane Doe defendants. The opinion says she alleged various claims, including disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act. Her operative complaint added several groups of defendants, including the Coffee Defendants, the Twerski Defendants, and defendants who had not appeared in the case.
Pending Motions
The Original Defendants, Coffee Defendants, and Twerski Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The order states that the arguments supporting those motions appeared to apply equally to the Non-Appearing Defendants. Judge Tarnofsky said a forthcoming report and recommendation on the motions to dismiss was expected to address Noe’s claims against the Non-Appearing Defendants as well.
Order and Effect
The court ordered Noe to include in her opposition to the pending motions to dismiss, due June 28, 2024, any arguments explaining why the claims against the Non-Appearing Defendants should not be dismissed. Judge Tarnofsky cautioned that Noe’s failure to do so could itself result in a recommendation that the court dismiss those claims on its own motion. This order did not grant or deny the pending motions to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Noe’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.