Parker v. Bursor
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Parker v. Bursor, Judge Clarke granted the extension and appendix requests and granted only 35 pages, denying the rest of defendants’ application.
Defendants Scott Bursor and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. received permission to file an appendix and a memorandum of up to 35 pages, and their response deadline was extended to May 13, 2024. The plaintiff’s deadline to respond to defendants’ objections to the corrected report and recommendation was also extended to May 13, 2024.
What happened
In Parker v. Bursor, the defendants asked for permission to file a longer brief and an appendix supporting an anticipated motion to dismiss or strike the complaint. They also asked for a one-day extension of their deadline to respond to the complaint, and the plaintiff requested the same extension for responses to objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
The defendants requested a 45-page brief, an appendix identifying allegations they wanted removed, and an extension from May 12 to May 13, 2024. The plaintiff likewise requested an extension to May 13, 2024. The opinion does not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or strike.
The court granted the extension requests and permission to file an appendix. It granted defendants leave to file a memorandum of up to 35 pages, and the application was otherwise denied in part. Judge Clarke also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 65.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bursor · No. 1:24-cv-00245
- Clarke
- May 8, 2024
Background
Defendants Scott Bursor and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., represented by counsel, submitted a letter-motion before the deadline to respond to the complaint. They stated that they intended to file a motion to dismiss and strike the complaint, or portions of it, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b), 8(a), and 12(f).
Defendants requested leave to file a 45-page memorandum in support of that anticipated motion. They also requested permission to file an appendix, outside the page limit, containing a table identifying allegations that they contended should be stricken and briefly explaining the reasons for each proposed striking. Defendants described the complaint as 72 pages long and containing 286 paragraphs.
The parties also requested one-day extensions. Defendants sought to move their deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint from Sunday, May 12, 2024, to Monday, May 13, 2024. The plaintiff sought the same extension for responses to defendants’ objections to Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky’s corrected report and recommendation. The letter stated that the parties consented to these extension requests.
Ruling
The court’s endorsed order states: “Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.” The court granted the extension requests and the request to file an appendix. It granted defendants leave to file a memorandum of law of up to 35 pages in support of their anticipated Rule 12 motion. The order therefore did not grant the requested 45-page limit in full.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 65. The order addressed briefing permission and deadlines; it did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or strike the complaint.
Effect
Defendants received permission to file an appendix and a memorandum of up to 35 pages, rather than the 45 pages requested. Defendants’ response deadline and the plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the objections were extended to May 13, 2024. The order does not state in a separate sentence which specific portion was denied, beyond identifying the application as granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.