Lahoz v. Zeppelin et al, No. 1:2008cv04364 - Document 37 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION: #98256 The Defendants have untimely moved to extend their time to move for reconsideration and the order of March 10, 2009 (the "March 10 Order") denying the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss the complaint of the pro se plai ntiff Angel L. Lahoz ("Lahoz" or the "Plaintiff") under Rule 12(b)6, FRCP oralternatively under Rule 56, FRCP No good cause has been shown for the failure to move timely for reconsideration. However, the moving papers do establish that the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was submitted ex parte, was not served, and was not docketed. The fact upon which the March 10 Order was based, the unavailability of a grievance procedure, has been placed in issue by the ins tant motion. The failure to serve the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was overlooked, and the March 10 Order is vacated pursuant to Rule 60, FRCP. Discovery is to be completed within 45 days and a final pretrial conference will be hel d on January 20, 2010. The Defendants are granted leave to reserve their prior motions to dismiss within 20 days. 30 MOTION for Extension of Time. MOTION for Reconsideration. MOTION to Vacate. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/18/09) (db) Modified on 11/19/2009 (eef).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ..................................... X ANGEL L. LAHOZ, Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 4364 -against- OPINION ORANGE COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., Defendants. ..................................... X A P P E A R A N C E S : Plaintiff Pro Se ANGEL L. LAHOZ #oe~3842 Great Meadow Correctional Facility 11739 State Route 22, Box 51 Cornstock. NY 12821 Attorneys for Defendants JOSEPH F. MAHONEY, ESQ. Assistant County Attorney DAVID L. DARWIN, ESQ. County Attorney for Orange County 255-275 Main Street Goshen, New York 10924 Sweet, D.J. The Defendants have untimely moved to extend their time to move for reconsideration and the order of March 10, 2009 (the "March 10 Order") denying the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss the complaint of the pro se plaintiff Angel L. Lahoz ("Lahoz" or the "Plaintiff") under Rule 12(b)6, Fed. R. Civ. P. or alternatively under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. No good cause has been shown for the failure to move timely for reconsideration. However, the moving papers do establish that the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was submitted ex parte, was not served, and was not docketed. The fact upon which the March 10 Order was based, the unavailability of a grievance procedure, has been placed in issue by the instant motion. The failure to serve the affidavit on which the March 10 Order was based was overlooked, and the March 10 Order is vacated pursuant to Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P. Discovery is to be completed within 45 days and a final pretrial conference will be held on January 20, 2010. The Defendants are granted leave to reserve their prior motions to dismiss within 20 days. So ordered. N e w Y o r k , NY November ,f $' , 2009 w L BERT W . SWEET U.S.D. J.
]]>
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.
