Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cottrell v. Family Practice Associates at Washington, PA

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 31, 2017

MARYANN COTTRELL and RICHARD HOLLAND, Plaintiffs,
v.
FAMILY PRACTICE ASSOCIATES at WASHINGTON, PA, et al., Defendants.

          Maryann Cottrell Richard Holland Pro Se Plaintiffs.

          WEINER LAW GROUP LLP By: Arnold Robert Gerst, Esq. Counsel for Defendants.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         On May 26, 2016, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and this case was closed. See Opinion and Order at docket entries 26 and 27. In an 8-sentence letter dated June 6, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Maryann Cottrell “request[s] the opportunity to file a supplemental response to the motion [for summary judgment].” Docket entry 28. Defendants oppose the request. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's request, which the Court construes as a Motion to Reopen the case[1], will be denied without prejudice.[2]

         I.

         This is a suit pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination. The Court's prior discussion of the summary judgment record is incorporated herein by reference.

         Most directly relevant to the instant motion is the following procedural history.

         The motion for summary judgment began as a motion to dismiss, which was originally filed in December, 2015. Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion. Because the Motion to Dismiss relied on materials outside the pleadings, the Court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. See Opinion and Order at docket entries 23 and 24. The Order converting the motion set a supplemental briefing schedule; Plaintiffs' supplemental response was due 20 days from the date of the Order, i.e., on May 18, 2016.

         Plaintiffs filed no supplemental response, and on May 26, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants.

         In Plaintiff Cottrell's letter requesting leave to belatedly file her response, Plaintiff asserts that “[a]t the time the Order was signed (Document 24)[3] . . . plaintiff Cottrell was in the hospital having surgery performed.” Plaintiff's letter encloses the following undated doctor's note:

To whom it may concern:
This is to verify that: Maryann Cottrell Has been seen in our office last on 5/18/2016.
This letter is to request that Maryann be excused from jury duty until 6/22/2016 or after due to her recent knee surgery. She underwent a total knee replacement on 5/2/2016. She is currently recovering from surgery and participating in intense physical therapy which limits her ability to participate in jury duty at ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.