MARTINEZ v. FUDEMAN, No. 5:2016cv01290 - Document 68 (E.D. Pa. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO REOPEN (DOC. NO. 56) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/13/18. 3/13/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MARTINEZ v. FUDEMAN Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GILBERT M. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF READING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE DIVISION, and READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290 ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2018, after considering the following documents: (1) the “Motion to Reopen the Time to Appeal Pursuant to Rule 4(A)6 & Memorandum of Law in Support” (“Motion to Reopen”) filed by the pro se plaintiff, Gilbert M. Martinez (Doc. No. 56); (2) the responses in opposition to the motion to reopen separately filed by the defendants, City of Reading Property Maintenance Division and Reading Area Water Authority (Doc. Nos. 57, 58); (3) the “Reply and Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reopen Time to Appeal” filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 60); (4) the sur-reply in opposition to the motion to reopen filed by the City of Reading Property Maintenance Division (Doc. No. 61); (5) the “Motion Pursuant Fed.R.P.R. [sic] 60B(1)(3)(4)(6) and Sur-Reply to Motion Pursuant to Fed.C.Appeal R. [sic] 4(6)(A) for Time to Reopen Appeal with Memorandum of Law in Support” filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 63); (6) Reading Area Water Authority’s “Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)(3)(4)(6) and Sur-Reply to Motion Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(6) for Time to Reopen Appeal” (Doc. No. 65); and (7) the “Reply to Defendants response brief opposing Plaintiff’s 60(b) Motion and Request for time to reopen Appeal” filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 66); and after holding an evidentiary hearing and hearing oral argument on the motion Dockets.Justia.com to reopen on January 9, 2018, during which the plaintiff and defense counsel were present; and for the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to reopen (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED as follows: 1. The Motion to Reopen, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to have the court reopen the time for him to file a notice of appeal from the court’s September 29, 2017 order under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is DENIED; and 2. The Motion to Reopen, to the extent that the plaintiff seek to have the court reopen the time for him to file a notice of appeal from the court’s November 3, 2017 order, which the court has interpreted as a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is DENIED AS MOOT. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
