Marquez v. Hoffman, 18 Civ. 7315 (ALC) (GWG). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20191115d08
Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN , Magistrate Judge . With regard to Docket #184, the Court notes that it adjudicates applications within the order of reference to the undersigned (Docket #69) regardless of who the application is addressed to. The motion to withdraw is within that order of reference. Mr. Vassilev has now supplied a reason for the motion to withdraw in Docket #184, the absence of which was the principal objection by the defendants in their opposition papers. Having now for the
Summary: ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN , Magistrate Judge . With regard to Docket #184, the Court notes that it adjudicates applications within the order of reference to the undersigned (Docket #69) regardless of who the application is addressed to. The motion to withdraw is within that order of reference. Mr. Vassilev has now supplied a reason for the motion to withdraw in Docket #184, the absence of which was the principal objection by the defendants in their opposition papers. Having now for the f..
More
ORDER
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge.
With regard to Docket #184, the Court notes that it adjudicates applications within the order of reference to the undersigned (Docket #69) regardless of who the application is addressed to. The motion to withdraw is within that order of reference.
Mr. Vassilev has now supplied a reason for the motion to withdraw in Docket #184, the absence of which was the principal objection by the defendants in their opposition papers. Having now for the first time supplied a reason as contemplated by Local Civil Rule 1.4, the Court will give defendants one further opportunity to respond to the motion. Any response shall be by letter filed on or before November 15, 2019. If plaintiff wishes to reply, she may do so by letter filed on or before November 19, 2019.
Finally, in Docket #184, plaintiff states that she may chose not to "respond to orders" that do not conform to her views as to what should be included in the orders. The Court notes that this is not a proper ground for failing to comply with a court order. Plaintiff is warned that if she fails to comply with court orders in the future, she may be subject to sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
