Franco v. American Airlines, Inc.

S.D. New York

Franco v. American Airlines, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 18, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-05918·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X

JUSTIN FRANCO, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 21-CV-5918 (PGG) (JW) AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER E. WILLIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

This morning, the Court’s pro se intake office received a letter from the Plaintiff. Defendant contacted the Court and forwarded the letter to the Court via email. Plaintiff’s letter stated, “oral arguments for this case are scheduled for today. However, I need to inform you that I am experiencing a significant and unexpected health concern which, with regret, will prevent my attendance.” The letter further said, “despite such developments, I am submitting my revised reply as initially planned…This revision is a comprehensive reply memorandum complete with proper citations, a refined Rule 56.1 statement, a listing of my objections, and additional affidavits.” SDNY Local Rule 6.1(b) does not generally permit sur-replies and Local Rule 56.1(b) requires the Rule 56.1 statement to be included with the Opposition to Summary Judgment. Nevertheless, even though the papers may not be in the exact proper form, “pro se litigants…deserve more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel.” See McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir.1988). Furthermore, the Second Circuit has expressed “a strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.” See Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., No. 19-CV-2431 (AJN), 2021 WL 2292682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2021) citing New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, the Court will accept Plaintiff's revised 56.1 statement, sur-reply, and affidavits in lieu of holding oral argument. Therefore, today’s oral argument is CANCELED. On a separate note, the Court respectfully requests Defendant submit a letter to the Court by November 1*t, with a chart or list that identifies each exhibit in Dkt. No. 82 and referenced in the memoranda of law. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2023 New York, New York

be, E Wille prefer E. Wille United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X

JUSTIN FRANCO, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 21-CV-5918 (PGG) (JW) AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER E. WILLIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

This morning, the Court’s pro se intake office received a letter from the Plaintiff. Defendant contacted the Court and forwarded the letter to the Court via email. Plaintiff’s letter stated, “oral arguments for this case are scheduled for today. However, I need to inform you that I am experiencing a significant and unexpected health concern which, with regret, will prevent my attendance.” The letter further said, “despite such developments, I am submitting my revised reply as initially planned…This revision is a comprehensive reply memorandum complete with proper citations, a refined Rule 56.1 statement, a listing of my objections, and additional affidavits.” SDNY Local Rule 6.1(b) does not generally permit sur-replies and Local Rule 56.1(b) requires the Rule 56.1 statement to be included with the Opposition to Summary Judgment. Nevertheless, even though the papers may not be in the exact proper form, “pro se litigants…deserve more lenient treatment than those represented by counsel.” See McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir.1988). Furthermore, the Second Circuit has expressed “a strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.” See Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., No. 19-CV-2431 (AJN), 2021 WL 2292682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2021) citing New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, the Court will accept Plaintiff's revised 56.1 statement, sur-reply, and affidavits in lieu of holding oral argument. Therefore, today’s oral argument is CANCELED. On a separate note, the Court respectfully requests Defendant submit a letter to the Court by November 1*t, with a chart or list that identifies each exhibit in Dkt. No. 82 and referenced in the memoranda of law. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2023 New York, New York

be, E Wille prefer E. Wille United States Magistrate Judge

Franco v. American Airlines, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Franco v. American Airlines, Inc. (Franco v. American Airlines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related