Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genovese

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff

Vv. Docket No: 18-cv-942 (JGK)(BCM) J. Genovese, et. al., . MOTION TO STAY Defendant

comes Nicholas J. Genovese (Pro Se) Informa Pauperis (IFP) to request the court to STAY the Order of the court of 22, 2020 "Granting Plaintiffs request to fite for a summary judgment" until the appeal has been resolved, Whict filed Notice of Appeal on October 2, 2020 for the following reasons;

Moses Granting Plaintiff his request to file for summary judgment (dated September 22,2020) is inconsistent with set forth and the powers of a Magistrate Judge in this Discovery process as set forth in Judge Moses order regarding Management (dated June 18,2020). Order by the court dated September 22,2020 Granting Plaintiff his request to file for Summary Judgment clearly viol: Magistrates powers EXCLUDE per 18 U.S.C. 636 Jurisdiction, Powers, and Temporary Assignment (b)(1)(A) "A ju a Magistrate..., except fora judgment on the pleadings for a Summary Judgment." □ by granting this request by plaintiff to file for summary judgment wastes the time and resources of the court, the time resources of the defendant and only further clouds the actual issue, which is Plaintiffs failure to produce all discovery a: responsibility as laid out in Rule 26 and in the rules set forth in Judge Moses order regarding Pre Trial Managemer June 18, 2020). I filed Notice Of Appeal, Pro Se and Informa Pauperis (IFP) on a timely basis on October 2, 2020. also add that by the court erroneously granting this request by Plaintiff it is becoming evident to me that this is anoth exhibited in favor for the Plaintiff, thereby violating my Fourteenth Amendment rights and | reserve the right to req Honor recuse from this case. ,

J. bi Pro Se Informa Pauperis mE @ E | Wi E this Wey of October 2, 2020 in the LEGAL mailbox at MDC Brooklyn D SO ANS oct 14 2020

. . I Ht ae a]

The application for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. The order appealed from (Dkt. No. 44) is a non- dispositive scheduling order within the scope of the assigned magistrate judge's reference and is not appealable. Consequently, no stay is warranted. Holmes v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 133 F.3d 907 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Rogers, 101 F.3d 247, 251-52 (2d Cir. 1996); Rosenberg v. City of New York, 2020 WL 5868153, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2020); Mabry v. Hester, 2014 WL 1848739, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014). Despite two recent extensions of his time within which to do so (Dkt. Nos. 26, 44), defendant Genovese failéd to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before his most recent. deadline, which was October 9, 2020. (Dkt. No. 44.) The entity defendants have never appeared or responded to the Complaint through licensed counsel, as required. Plaintiff may (but is not required to)