Opinion
18 Civ. 1005 (AT) (SDA) 19 Civ. 953 (AT) 20 Civ. 9141 (AT) (SDA)
07-13-2022
INDIFLA KAIRAM, M.D., Plaintiff, v. WEST SIDE GI, LLC, Defendant. INDIRA KAIRAM, M.D., Plaintiff, v. WEST SIDE GI, LLC, Defendant. INDIRA KAIRAM, M.D., Plaintiff, v. PETER DISTLER, M.D. and RICARDO E. POU, M.D., Defendants.
ORDER
ANALISA TORRES, DISTRICT JUDGE:
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff s letter dated July 12, 2022. See, e.g., 18 Civ. 1005, ECF No. 228. Plaintiff contends that the Court's denial of her motion to strike portions of the Defendants' motion to dismiss was improper. Id. She cites Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inc. v. Lau. 825 F.2d 647 (2d Cir. 1987), among other cases quoting Richardson, to argue that the Court may not deny her the right to file any motion. Id. That is incorrect. Richardson states “a court has no power to prevent a party from filing pleadings, motions or appeals authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 825 F.2d at 652. Plaintiff has not pointed to any part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that authorize the filing of a motion to strike a motion to dismiss, the Court could is aware of none. The only time the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates a motion to strike is in the context of striking pleadings, unsigned documents, third-party complaints. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a), 12(f), 14(a)(4), 26(g)(2).
The Court permitted Plaintiff to raise any concerns with the report and recommendation issued by the Honorable Stewart D. Anon, ECF No. 217, stemming from the alleged improprieties of defense counsel through filing a revised objection, ECF No. 227. Further, should Plaintiff believe defense counsel mislead the Court in some way, there are mechanisms within the Federal Rules of Civil procedure to address that concern. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b).
The Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff claims defense counsel misrepresented facts in the motion to dismiss, the Court is permitted to consider only the facts in the relevant complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss. ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, Plaintiff may file an updated objections as set forth in the July 7, 2022 order. ECF No. 227. No extension will be granted to either party to the deadlines set forth in that order absent a showing of good cause.
SO ORDERED.