United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER
Donna
F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge
The
docket in this case, involving multiple parties and filings,
has become lengthy, complex, and confusing. The failure of
the parties to comply with the Federal and local rules of
civil procedure when filing motions and other documents has
contributed to the lack of clarity. Counsel should take heed
to follow carefully all filing requirements. In an effort to
clarify the procedural posture of the case, the court enters
the following orders:
I.
The Weycer Firm's Objection to Defendants'
Summary Judgment Motion and Accompanying Rule 56(a)(2)
Statement
A. On
9/28/2018, the court [111] denied defendants' [97] Motion
for Summary Judgment without prejudice to refiling. On
10/18/2018, despite no pending motion, intervenor Weycer,
Kaplan, Pulaski and Zuber (the “Weycer Firm) filed an
[113] Objection to Defendants' [97] Motion for Summary
Judgment and accompanying [112] Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of
Facts in Opposition. Therefore, the Weycer Firm's [113]
Objection to Defendants' [97] Motion for Summary Judgment
and accompanying [112] Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Facts are
OVERRULED AS MOOT because there was no pending motion to
which to object.
B. On
10/28/2018, defendants filed a [119] Second Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Weycer Firm's objection to
defendants' motion is due by no later than 12/22/2018.
The court notes that in the Weycer Firm's earlier
opposition, the Weycer Firm's [112] Rule 56(a)(2)
statement of facts in opposition did not comply with Local
Rule 56(a)(2), which requires a party to
“include a reproduction of each numbered
paragraph in the moving party's Local Rule 56
(a)(1) Statement followed by a response to each paragraph
admitting or denying the fact and/or objecting to the fact as
permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).”
D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(2). (Emphasis supplied.) When the
Weycer Firm files its objection to [119] defendants'
Second Motion for Summary Judgment, the Weycer Firm must
submit the required statement of material facts in opposition
to summary judgment in compliance with Rule 56(a)(2).
II.
The Weycer Firm's Motions for Summary Judgment
A. It
appears that the Weycer Firm filed two renewed summary
judgment motions. The Weycer Firm's [114] Renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the
subsequent filing of its [118] Motion for Summary Judgment
Renewed. The Weycer Firm's [118] Motion for Summary
Judgment Renewed is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by
no later than 12/22/2018 because the Weycer Firm did not file
a new motion and accompanying memorandum of law. Rather, the
Weycer Firm referred the court to its [94] Motion for Summary
Judgment which the court already denied. When the Weycer Firm
refiles, it shall file a new motion for summary judgment,
accompanying memorandum of law and Rule 56(a)(1) statement of
undisputed material facts.
B.
Because the court has denied the Weycer Firm's [118]
Motion for Summary Judgment Renewed without prejudice to
refiling, defendants' [120] Memorandum in Opposition to
[118] Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED AS MOOT, and
defendants should file a new memorandum in opposition and
accompanying rule 56(a)(2) statement after the Weycer Firm
refiles its motion for summary judgment.
III.
Deborah Stuckey's Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment
A. On
11/16/2018, intervenor Deborah Stuckey filed a [123]
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' [119] Second
Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by exhibits and a
Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Material Facts. The Rule 56(a)(2)
Statement of Material Facts does not comply with Local Rule
56(a)(2), which requires a party to “include a
reproduction of each numbered
paragraph in the moving party's Local Rule 56
(a) (1) Statement followed by a response to each paragraph
admitting or denying the fact and/or objecting to the fact as
permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).”
D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(2). (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore,
Stuckey's [123] Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendants' [119] Second Motion for Summary Judgment is
OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no later than
12/22/2018. Stuckey's memorandum in opposition to summary
judgment must be accompanied by a statement of material facts
in opposition to summary judgment in compliance with Rule
56(a)(2). Defendants' [126] Reply to Stuckey's [123]
Response to Defendants' [119] Second Summary Judgment
motion is DENIED AS MOOT. When Stuckey refiles her response,
defendants may file a reply within 14 days in accordance with
D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 7(d).
IV.
Leon Li-Heng Lu's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Response to the Parties' Summary Judgment Motions
A.
Intervenor Leon Li-heng Lu's [117] Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no later
than 12/22/2018 because Lu failed to file a statement of
undisputed material facts in accordance with D.Conn.L.Civ.R.
56(a)(1). When Lu re-files his motion, he must submit the
required statement of undisputed material facts in compliance
with Rule 56(a)(1). Because the court has denied Lu's
[117] Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to
refiling, defendants' [125] Memorandum in Opposition to
[117] Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED AS MOOT, and
defendants should file a new memorandum in opposition and
accompanying rule 56(a)(2) statement after Lu refiles his
motion for summary judgment.
B. On
11/16/2018, Lu filed a combined [124] Response re [115]
Second Motion for Summary Judgment, [114] Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment, [118] Motion for Summary Judgment Renewed,
and [119] Second Motion for Summary Judgment. As to [115]
Stuckey's Second Motion for Summary Judgment and [119]
defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment, Lu's
response is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING by no
later than 12/22/2018 because Lu failed to file an
accompanying statement of facts in opposition to summary
judgment, in accordance with D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 56(a)(2). When
Lu re-files his memorandum in opposition, he must submit the
required statement of facts in opposition to summary judgment
in compliance with Rule 56(a)(2). As to the Weycer Firm's
[114] Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and [118] Motion
for Summary Judgment Renewed, Lu's opposition is
OVERRULED AS MOOT because the court has denied those motions
without prejudice to refiling, and Lu should file a new
memorandum in opposition and accompanying rule 56(a)(2)
statement after the Weycer Firm ...