Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 23, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-00320
StatusUnknown

This text of Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc (Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc) 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
Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DR. STEWART LUCAS MURREY, DOC #; —_______ DATE FILED: 6/23/2021 Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 320 (AT) ILC) AARON MING, et al., ORDER Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2021. ECF No. 93. Although Plaintiff indicates that this motion is “ex parte”, he also sent it to opposing counsel and filed it on the docket. Jd. at 6. Because the Court finds no reason to decide the motion ex parte, it also considers Defendants’ opposition at ECF No. 94. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to permit temporary electronic filing via the temporary_pro_se_filing @nysd.uscourts.gov email address until he attends the required class for ECF filing is GRANTED. See In Re: Coronavirus/Covid-19 Pandemic (Temporary Provision for Pro Se Litigants to File by Email), No 20 Misc. 179 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020), ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Without more indication of the additional facts Plaintiff intends to include in his amended complaint, the Court cannot evaluate whether such an amendment would be futile. Horoshko vy. Citibank, N.A., 373 F.3d 248, 249 (2d Cir. 2004). Should Plaintiff wish to amend his complaint, he must file a motion asking leave to do so and asserting the specific additional allegations he intends to add. Plaintiff's motion for judicial notice is DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the facts contained in the attached emails and article are “generally known within [the Court’s] territorial jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. If Plaintiff believes the facts contained in these materials are relevant to his claims and factually accurate, he should include them in his proposed amendment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 93, and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff pro se. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2021 New York, New York _ ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

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

Related

Ostrom v. Greene
20 Misc. 177 (New York Supreme Court, 1897)
Horoshko v. Citibank, N.A.
373 F.3d 248 (Second Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dr-stewart-lucas-murrey-v-brandyourselfcom-inc-nysd-2021.