Opinion
24-CV-5415 (VEC) (BCM)
09-11-2024
DOINA ALMAZON, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, Defendant.
ORDER
BARBARA MOSES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In my Order Adjourning Case Management Conference, dated September 9, 2024 (Dkt. 21), I noted that defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) was fully briefed. Since then, however, plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply in further opposition to the motion (Dkt. 22) and defendant filed a letter objecting to the sur-reply and asking that the Court "reject" it. (Dkt. 23.)
"In this Court, '[l]itigation, including motion practice, is an ordered process. Local Civil Rule 6.1 provides for opening papers, opposition papers, and reply papers, in that order.'" Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Gottlieb, 2023 WL 6294328, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Paravas v. Cerf, 2022 WL 203168 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)). "Additional papers, filed without authorization from the Court, can be disregarded as unfair to the opposing party." Id.; see also Lawtone-Bowles v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for Holders of MLMI Tr. 2002-AFC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-AFC1, 2021 WL 1518329, at *1 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021) ("The Court need not consider a sur-reply or sur-sur-reply where permission was neither sought nor granted, and Plaintiff's pro se status does not absolve her from complying with this Court's rules[.]") (citations omitted), aff'd sub nom. Lawtone-Bowles v. Brown, 2022 WL 839280 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2022).
The Court will disregard both plaintiff's unauthorized sur-reply and defendant's responding letter. In the absence of a material change in governing law, the Court will not accept further briefing on the motion to dismiss. "Should plaintiff persist in filing multiple or seriatim letter-briefs or other motion papers, beyond those permitted by Local Civ. R. 6.1 and [this Court's individual practices], the Court will not hesitate to strike them." Adams v. Co-op City Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2024 WL 402856, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2024).
SO ORDERED.