Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.

S.D. New York

Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 2, 2019·No. 1:16-cv-04762·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SBNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., — : Plaintiff, : -against- : MEMORANDUM and ORDER RAPPAPORT HERTZ CHERSON : 16-CV-4762 (LTS)(KNF) ROSENTHAL, P.C., WILLIAM RAPPAPORT, : , STEVEN M. HERTZ, ELIOT J. CHERSON, : MICHAEL C. ROSENTHAL, and : BRANKO RAKAMARIC, : Defendants. : ene eee ee nee enone nmnnnennnennn KX KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Branko Rakamaric (“Rakamaric’”), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 26(c)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see Docket Entry No. 155. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requires that a motion for a protective order “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Rakamaric’s motion does not include the requisite certification. Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court provides that, except for letter-motions permitted by Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) or as otherwise permitted by the Court, all motions must include, inter alia, “[s]upporting affidavits an exhibits thereto containing any factual information and portions of the record necessary for the decision of the motion.” Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3). Rakamaric failed to file an affidavit(s) containing the factual information necessary for the decision on the motion. Rakamaric’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)and Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court, warrants the denial of his motion. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear, a litigant’s pro se status does not exempt the litigant from complying with applicable rules of procedural and substantive law. See Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).

For the reasons set forth above, Rakamaric’s motion for a protective order, Docket Entry No. 155, is denied. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED: October 2, 2019 [Cut~nttanik Pre KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SBNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., — : Plaintiff, : -against- : MEMORANDUM and ORDER RAPPAPORT HERTZ CHERSON : 16-CV-4762 (LTS)(KNF) ROSENTHAL, P.C., WILLIAM RAPPAPORT, : , STEVEN M. HERTZ, ELIOT J. CHERSON, : MICHAEL C. ROSENTHAL, and : BRANKO RAKAMARIC, : Defendants. : ene eee ee nee enone nmnnnennnennn KX KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Branko Rakamaric (“Rakamaric’”), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 26(c)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see Docket Entry No. 155. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requires that a motion for a protective order “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Rakamaric’s motion does not include the requisite certification. Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court provides that, except for letter-motions permitted by Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) or as otherwise permitted by the Court, all motions must include, inter alia, “[s]upporting affidavits an exhibits thereto containing any factual information and portions of the record necessary for the decision of the motion.” Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3). Rakamaric failed to file an affidavit(s) containing the factual information necessary for the decision on the motion. Rakamaric’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)and Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court, warrants the denial of his motion. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear, a litigant’s pro se status does not exempt the litigant from complying with applicable rules of procedural and substantive law. See Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).

For the reasons set forth above, Rakamaric’s motion for a protective order, Docket Entry No. 155, is denied. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED: October 2, 2019 [Cut~nttanik Pre KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C., (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C. (Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related