Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation

S.D. New York

Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 28, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-05951·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED LIA TIEU, DOC DATE FILED: _ 11/28/2023 Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 5951 (AT) NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WINTHROP ORDER HOYT and RACHEL LOEB, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently pending before this Court. Before addressing the merits of that motion, however, the Court must address Defendants’ request that the Court disregard Plaintiffs Rule 56.1 Statement of Disputed Facts. ECF No. 85. Defendants argue that under Local Rule 56.1(b), “Plaintiff is not permitted to submit a separate Rule 56.1 statement of disputed facts; rather, Plaintiff was required to include any disputed facts in her response to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement of material facts.” ECF No. 95 at 2 (emphasis in original). Local Rule 56.1(b) permits the party opposing a motion of summary judgment to submit, “if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” The Rule does not require that these “additional paragraphs” appear in the same document as the nonmoving party’s responses to the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 statement in deciding the motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, Defendants request an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's statement of disputed facts. “While Local Rule 56.1 does not expressly permit parties to submit reply statements of undisputed material facts (or objections thereto), it does not prohibit such statements either.” adidas Am., Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., No. 21 Civ. 5615, 2022 WL 17736799, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022). Accordingly, by December 14, 2023, Defendants may respond to Plaintiffs statement of disputed facts. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 28, 2023 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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED LIA TIEU, DOC DATE FILED: _ 11/28/2023 Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 5951 (AT) NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WINTHROP ORDER HOYT and RACHEL LOEB, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently pending before this Court. Before addressing the merits of that motion, however, the Court must address Defendants’ request that the Court disregard Plaintiffs Rule 56.1 Statement of Disputed Facts. ECF No. 85. Defendants argue that under Local Rule 56.1(b), “Plaintiff is not permitted to submit a separate Rule 56.1 statement of disputed facts; rather, Plaintiff was required to include any disputed facts in her response to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement of material facts.” ECF No. 95 at 2 (emphasis in original). Local Rule 56.1(b) permits the party opposing a motion of summary judgment to submit, “if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” The Rule does not require that these “additional paragraphs” appear in the same document as the nonmoving party’s responses to the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 statement in deciding the motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, Defendants request an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's statement of disputed facts. “While Local Rule 56.1 does not expressly permit parties to submit reply statements of undisputed material facts (or objections thereto), it does not prohibit such statements either.” adidas Am., Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., No. 21 Civ. 5615, 2022 WL 17736799, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2022). Accordingly, by December 14, 2023, Defendants may respond to Plaintiffs statement of disputed facts. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 28, 2023 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation (Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.