David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank

D. New Jersey

David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank

DecidedJanuary 23, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-00832

StatusUnknown

This text of David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank (David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank, (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

DAVID C. LETTIERI,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 24-832 (RMB/SAK) v. ORDER TD BANK,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the motion to strike defenses and for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and 12(f) [Docket No. 39] by Plaintiff David C. Lettieri, as well as the letter by Defendant TD Bank [Docket No. 41] requesting the adjournment of Plaintiff’s motion in light of the Court-ordered discovery that is underway relating to Defendant’s forthcoming converted motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is premature at this time. As noted by Defendant, the issues raised by Plaintiff may be impacted by the forthcoming discovery which will be scheduled in coordination with the Honorable Sharon A. King, United States Magistrate Judge, as well as this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s forthcoming converted motion for summary judgment. As a result, in the interests of judicial efficiency and conserving judicial resources, the Court exercises its “inherent authority to manage [its] docket . . . with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of its cases,” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016), and will administratively terminate Plaintiff’s motion pending the resolution of Defendant’s forthcoming motion for summary judgment and further Order of the Court. The parties are, once again, advised that

administrative termination is not a ruling on the merits or otherwise. See Martinez v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2019 WL 13396460, at *2 (D.N.J. July 10, 2019); see also Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275 (3d Cir. 2013) (administrative termination is “a practical tool used by courts” to effectively manage

their dockets). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY, on this 23rd day of January 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike defenses and for a more definite statement [Docket No. 39] is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending further Order of the Court; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order to Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail and NOTE the completion of same on the docket. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

DAVID C. LETTIERI,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 24-832 (RMB/SAK) v. ORDER TD BANK,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the motion to strike defenses and for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) and 12(f) [Docket No. 39] by Plaintiff David C. Lettieri, as well as the letter by Defendant TD Bank [Docket No. 41] requesting the adjournment of Plaintiff’s motion in light of the Court-ordered discovery that is underway relating to Defendant’s forthcoming converted motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is premature at this time. As noted by Defendant, the issues raised by Plaintiff may be impacted by the forthcoming discovery which will be scheduled in coordination with the Honorable Sharon A. King, United States Magistrate Judge, as well as this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s forthcoming converted motion for summary judgment. As a result, in the interests of judicial efficiency and conserving judicial resources, the Court exercises its “inherent authority to manage [its] docket . . . with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of its cases,” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016), and will administratively terminate Plaintiff’s motion pending the resolution of Defendant’s forthcoming motion for summary judgment and further Order of the Court. The parties are, once again, advised that

administrative termination is not a ruling on the merits or otherwise. See Martinez v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2019 WL 13396460, at *2 (D.N.J. July 10, 2019); see also Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275 (3d Cir. 2013) (administrative termination is “a practical tool used by courts” to effectively manage

their dockets). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY, on this 23rd day of January 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike defenses and for a more definite statement [Docket No. 39] is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending further Order of the Court; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order to Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail and NOTE the completion of same on the docket. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David C. Lettieri v. TD Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-c-lettieri-v-td-bank-njd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack