Awan v. MTA

S.D. New York

Awan v. MTA

DecidedJuly 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-04339

StatusUnknown

This text of Awan v. MTA (Awan v. MTA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Awan v. MTA, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/22/2025 ABDUL Q. AWAN, Plaintiff, ORDER -V- 25-CV-4339 (AT) (HJR) NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a motion filed by the pro se Plaintiff on July 18, 2025, ECF No. 29. Although styled as a motion for “summary judgment,” this motion is made before any defendant has responded to the complaint and it fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1. More importantly, Plaintiff's motion is not, in substance, a motion for summary judgment. The stated basis for Plaintiff's motion is Defendant MTA’s alleged refusal “to answer the summons and delaying the case after [the] deadline expired.” ECF No. 29 at 1. The supporting affidavit further complains about the manner in which Defendant MTA requested and obtained extensions of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. ECF No. 30 44 53-68. Plaintiff made essentially the same claim in his motion for Order to Show Cause why Defendant MTA should not be held in contempt. ECF No. 25. The affidavit supporting the contempt motion significantly overlaps with the affidavit

filed in support of the instant motion. Compare ECF No. 26 with ECF No. 30. Plaintiff's motion for contempt was denied. ECF No. 31. Based on the substantive similarity between the instant motion, ECF No. 29, and Plaintiffs prior motion for contempt, ECF No. 25, which was denied, the Court construes the instant motion as one for reconsideration of either or both of the Court’s original grant of an extension of time to answer or Plaintiff's motion for contempt. “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict.” RCC Ventures, LLC v. Brandtone Holdings Ltd., 322 F.R.D. 442, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Motions for reconsideration are generally denied “unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this substantial burden. He does not offer any new controlling decisions or relevant data in his motion. MTA sought and obtained a routine extension. Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied and Defendant MTA’s deadline to respond to the complaint remains July 25, 2025. See ECF Nos. 14, 23. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 29 as DENIED and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2025 / New York, New York y ze 7 fe os Hen 4, Ricard United States Mbgistrate Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/22/2025 ABDUL Q. AWAN, Plaintiff, ORDER -V- 25-CV-4339 (AT) (HJR) NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a motion filed by the pro se Plaintiff on July 18, 2025, ECF No. 29. Although styled as a motion for “summary judgment,” this motion is made before any defendant has responded to the complaint and it fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1. More importantly, Plaintiff's motion is not, in substance, a motion for summary judgment. The stated basis for Plaintiff's motion is Defendant MTA’s alleged refusal “to answer the summons and delaying the case after [the] deadline expired.” ECF No. 29 at 1. The supporting affidavit further complains about the manner in which Defendant MTA requested and obtained extensions of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. ECF No. 30 44 53-68. Plaintiff made essentially the same claim in his motion for Order to Show Cause why Defendant MTA should not be held in contempt. ECF No. 25. The affidavit supporting the contempt motion significantly overlaps with the affidavit

filed in support of the instant motion. Compare ECF No. 26 with ECF No. 30. Plaintiff's motion for contempt was denied. ECF No. 31. Based on the substantive similarity between the instant motion, ECF No. 29, and Plaintiffs prior motion for contempt, ECF No. 25, which was denied, the Court construes the instant motion as one for reconsideration of either or both of the Court’s original grant of an extension of time to answer or Plaintiff's motion for contempt. “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict.” RCC Ventures, LLC v. Brandtone Holdings Ltd., 322 F.R.D. 442, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Motions for reconsideration are generally denied “unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this substantial burden. He does not offer any new controlling decisions or relevant data in his motion. MTA sought and obtained a routine extension. Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied and Defendant MTA’s deadline to respond to the complaint remains July 25, 2025. See ECF Nos. 14, 23. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 29 as DENIED and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2025 / New York, New York y ze 7 fe os Hen 4, Ricard United States Mbgistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Awan v. MTA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/awan-v-mta-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack