Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.

S.D. New York

Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 16, 2020

Docket1:14-cv-07535

StatusUnknown

This text of Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. (Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, 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

Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED TZVEE WOOD and ANDREA MALESTER, DOC —________ DATE FILED: 1/16/2020 Plaintiffs, -against- 14 Civ. 7535 (AT) (DCF) MUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., et al., ORDER Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On November 19, 2019, the Honorable Debra C. Freeman issued an ORDER closing discovery in this case. ECF No. 249 at 18-19. Plaintiffs pro se filed objections to that order on December 26, 2019. ECF No. 255. Defendants filed a response to those objections on January 10, 2020. ECF No. 259. Plaintiffs now ask the Court for an extension to reply to Defendants’ response. ECF No. 261. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 nor the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases contemplates a reply in support of objections to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950, 2019 WL 6221110, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2019); see also Alexander v. Evans, No. 88 Civ. 5309, 1993 WL 427409, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1993) (denying party’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of party’s objections, noting the absence of a provision for replies in Rule 72, and declining to consider the reply under the district court’s inherent discretion to hear further evidence) Although a reply is not authorized, this Court may, in its inherent discretion, allow a reply. See Alexander, 1993 WL 427409, at *4. Accordingly, given the short extension requested by Plaintiffs, and their status as pro se litigants, Plaintiffs’ request to file a reply is GRANTED. By January 28, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file their reply, not to exceed five pages. It is further ORDERED that Defendants will contact Plaintiffs to ensure that they have received a copy of Defendants’ response. If Defendants find that Plaintiffs have not yet received a copy of Defendants’ response by January 17, 2020, Defendants shall make arrangements to provide a copy of the response on Plaintiffs by January 21, 2020. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs pro se.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2020 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 TZVEE WOOD and ANDREA MALESTER, DOC —________ DATE FILED: 1/16/2020 Plaintiffs, -against- 14 Civ. 7535 (AT) (DCF) MUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., et al., ORDER Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On November 19, 2019, the Honorable Debra C. Freeman issued an ORDER closing discovery in this case. ECF No. 249 at 18-19. Plaintiffs pro se filed objections to that order on December 26, 2019. ECF No. 255. Defendants filed a response to those objections on January 10, 2020. ECF No. 259. Plaintiffs now ask the Court for an extension to reply to Defendants’ response. ECF No. 261. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 nor the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases contemplates a reply in support of objections to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950, 2019 WL 6221110, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2019); see also Alexander v. Evans, No. 88 Civ. 5309, 1993 WL 427409, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 1993) (denying party’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of party’s objections, noting the absence of a provision for replies in Rule 72, and declining to consider the reply under the district court’s inherent discretion to hear further evidence) Although a reply is not authorized, this Court may, in its inherent discretion, allow a reply. See Alexander, 1993 WL 427409, at *4. Accordingly, given the short extension requested by Plaintiffs, and their status as pro se litigants, Plaintiffs’ request to file a reply is GRANTED. By January 28, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file their reply, not to exceed five pages. It is further ORDERED that Defendants will contact Plaintiffs to ensure that they have received a copy of Defendants’ response. If Defendants find that Plaintiffs have not yet received a copy of Defendants’ response by January 17, 2020, Defendants shall make arrangements to provide a copy of the response on Plaintiffs by January 21, 2020. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs pro se.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2020 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-mutual-redevelopment-houses-inc-nysd-2020.