Workneh v. Super Shuttle International, Inc., 15 Civ. 3521 (ER) (RWL). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200316886
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter to the undersigned dated March 10, 2020 (Dkt. 248). Plaintiff's request to hold the pending motion to dismiss in abeyance and to open an investigation into Defendant's production of a medical document is DENIED. The document issue (concerning a dental appointment) has been repeatedly addressed and resolved in prior orders. Despite having been provided a previous extension to respond to the pending
Summary: ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER , Magistrate Judge . The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter to the undersigned dated March 10, 2020 (Dkt. 248). Plaintiff's request to hold the pending motion to dismiss in abeyance and to open an investigation into Defendant's production of a medical document is DENIED. The document issue (concerning a dental appointment) has been repeatedly addressed and resolved in prior orders. Despite having been provided a previous extension to respond to the pending ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, Magistrate Judge.
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter to the undersigned dated March 10, 2020 (Dkt. 248). Plaintiff's request to hold the pending motion to dismiss in abeyance and to open an investigation into Defendant's production of a medical document is DENIED. The document issue (concerning a dental appointment) has been repeatedly addressed and resolved in prior orders.
Despite having been provided a previous extension to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, the extended deadline for which was March 10, 2020. Instead, on that day, Plaintiff filed two letters to Judge Ramos as well as the letter that is the subject of this order. Plaintiff did not request a second extension and evidently had the time to compose and file three separate letters to the Court rather than file opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Court will proceed with resolving the motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
