You're viewing Docket Item 65 from the case Maitland v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:09-cv-01675-JS-AKT Document 65 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 378

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
EDSON MAITLAND,


Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
09-CV-1675(JS)(AKT)

B against B


KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,

-----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:

Defendant.

Edson Maitland, Pro Se
224 Park Avenue
Roosevelt, NY 11575
Loren M. Gesinsky, Esq.
Gibbons DelDeo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th floor
New York, NY 10119-3701
Suzanne Herrmann Brock, Esq.
Gibbons, P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102


For Defendant:









SEYBERT, District Judge:

On April 23, 2009, Plaintiff Edson Maitland (“Plaintiff”)
filed this pro se action seeking relief pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e et seq.,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.
' 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. ' 12101 et seq. Plaintiff attaches his timely February 25,
2009, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Right To Sue
letter. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application
entitled “REQUESTION FOR MOTION. REQUESTION FOR SANCTIONS SUMMARY



Case 2:09-cv-01675-JS-AKT Document 65 Filed 09/30/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 379

JUDGMENT MOTION.” For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s
application is DENIED.

BACKGROUND



Plaintiff alleges that his former employer, Konica Minolta

Business Solutions (“KMBS”), discriminated and retaliated against
him on the basis of his race, age, and impairment (“mental illness”),
in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. Plaintiff attaches
his New York State Division of Human Rights Complaint and provides
a narrative in which he alleges that he is black, over forty years
of age, and that he had worked for Defendant for five years with above
average performance reviews. (Human Rights Compl. && 1-3.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was involuntarily hospitalized for
bi-polar disorder and that his hospitalization was due to the
discrimination he suffered at work. Id. Plaintiff also alleges
that he was treated differently from white employees because, inter
alia, he was not given a company car. Subsequently, KMBS terminated
Plaintiff’s employment, allegedly due to his age and color, and in
retaliation for his submission of a complaint to the company’s Human
Resources department. Id.

DISCUSSION



Prior to moving for summary judgment, parties must comply

with Rule IV.F of the Court’s Individual Motion Practices. Rule IV.F
states:



2

Case 2:09-cv-01675-JS-AKT Document 65 Filed 09/30/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 380

1. Exchange of 56.1 Statements


F. Motions for Summary Judgment:



A party seeking to file a motion for summary
judgment must first serve a statement pursuant
to Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules for the Eastern
District of New York setting forth the material
facts as to which the moving party contends
there is no genuine issue to be tried. Each
statement of material fact must be followed by
a citation to admissible evidence, as set forth
and required by Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

All parties receiving a Rule 56.1 Statement and
wishing to oppose the motion must serve on the
movant, within fourteen (14) days of receiving
the movant's Rule 56.1 Statement, an original
and two copies of a counter-statement pursuant
to Rule 56.1(b) (“Rule 56.1 Counter-
Statement”). Should the non-movant require
additional time, the parties may agree among
themselves to a reasonable extension.

THE PARAGRAPHS IN THE COUNTER-STATEMENT MUST
CORRESPOND WITH THE PARAGRAPHS IN THE MOVANT’S
STATEMENT.

Rule 56.1 Statements and Counter-Statements
shall not be filed with the Court until the
moving party requests a summary judgment
pre-motion conference (see below).

2. Summary Judgment Pre-motion Conference


After receiving the opposing party’s Rule 56.1
Counter-Statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule
56.1, should the movant still wish to move for
summary judgment, the movant shall write to
Judge Seybert and request a pre-motion
conference. This letter should be filed
electronically with a courtesy copy to Judge
Seybert indicating that the original letter was




3

Case 2:09-cv-01675-JS-AKT Document 65 Filed 09/30/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 381

filed electronically and the document number
assigned. In no more than three (3) pages, the
letter should briefly state the basis for the
anticipated motion. The letter shall also
contain a copy of the movant’s Rule 56.1
Statement and the non-movant’s Rule 56.1
Counter-Statement. The supporting exhibits
need not be filed with the Court until the
parties submit their supporting memoranda in
accordance with the briefing schedule set by the
Court.

Within seven (7) days of receiving the movant’s
letter, the party opposing summary judgment
must serve and file a letter of no more than
three (3) pages setting forth the nature of the
opposition to the motion.

The arrangements for a pre-motion conference
must be made with Judge Seybert prior to any
deadline established by the Magistrate Judge
for the making of dispositive motions.

Adherence to Local Civil Rule 56.1 is required.
A pre-motion conference will not be held until
such time that the parties are in compliance
with Local Civil Rule 56.1. All parties are
directed to review Local Rule 56.1 carefully.
Statements submitted to the Court that are not
in strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 shall
be rejected.


4



(Indiv. Mot. Practices of Hon. Joanna Seybert, Rule IV.F.)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to follow any of the required
procedures set forth in the Court’s Individual Motion Practices.
Moreover, he has failed to comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, making his motion both procedurally and
substantively defective. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion.



Case 2:09-cv-01675-JS-AKT Document 65 Filed 09/30/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 382




Additionally, he has failed to cite any sanctionable
conduct by the Defendant or its counsel. Thus, the Court also DENIES
Plaintiff’s application for this relief.

CONCLUSION








For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED
in its entirety. Plaintiff is directed to review the Individual
Motion Practices of this Court, which can be viewed at
http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rules/JS-MLR.pdf. If Plaintiff
cannot view this document online, he should contact the pro se office
and a copy of this document will be provided to him.









Dated:





September 30, 2010
Central Islip, New York

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

SO ORDERED.
























5