United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB as Trustee of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, Plaintiff,
BERYL OTIENO-NGOJE, Defendant.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
MATTER comes before the Court upon pro se
Defendant Beryl Otieno-Ngoje's Notice of Motion
Requesting Permission to File and Over-Length Statement of
Facts and Brief, ECF No.  (“Notice”), filed
on June 5, 2019. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant's request is DENIED.
December 3, 2018, Defendant filed a document, docketed as an
application/petition and styled as a request for summary
judgment. ECF No. . The Court construed the filing as a
motion for summary judgment and found that it failed to
comply with the Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) which requires that
“[o]n motions for summary judgment, the movant shall
furnish a statement which sets forth material facts as to
which there does not exist a genuine issue, in separately
numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other
documents submitted in support of the motion.” L.R.
56.1(a). Because “[a] motion for summary judgment
unaccompanied by a statement of material facts not in dispute
shall be dismissed, ” the Court denied Defendant's
motion for summary judgment without prejudice. ECF No. .
March 22, 2019, Defendant again filed a document, docketed as
an application/petition and styled as “Notice of Motion
for Summary Judgment.” ECF No. . In the Notice,
Defendant states that she intends to move for summary
judgment on March 28, 2019, and her motion relies on a
memorandum of law and proposed order “attached
herewith, ” although no such documents were attached.
Id. On March 26, 2019, Defendant filed a letter
requesting guidance from the Court regarding her anticipated
motion for summary judgment and whether she must seek leave
of Court to file such motion. ECF No. . Defendant further
requested that the Court not deny her motion based on
“technicalities of law.” Id. In
response, on March 28, 2019, Plaintiff Wilmington Savings
Fund filed a letter requesting guidance from the Court
regarding whether it should respond to Defendant's
motion, and if so, upon what schedule. ECF No. .
Defendant did not file any additional papers in support of
her motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2019 beyond a
single paragraph “Notice of Motion” requesting
permission to file her motion for summary judgment.
April 3, 2019, the Court entered an order construing
Defendant's Notices of Motion as a motion for summary
judgment and denying her motion without prejudice for failure
to comply with the applicable procedural rules since her
filings failed to state the grounds on which she sought to
move for summary judgment and failed to include a statement
of material facts. ECF No. . This was the second time the
Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment
without prejudice based on failure to comply with the
applicable rules. Cf. ECF Nos.  & . In
the Order, the Court stated:
Should Defendant wish to file a motion for summary judgment,
such motion must be filed on or before April 12,
2019. The filing must include a memorandum in
support of the motion and a statement of undisputed facts.
Opposition papers shall be due on April 22,
2019 and reply papers due on April 29,
2019. The motion shall be returnable on May
ECF No.  at 2 (emphasis in original).
did not file her motion in accordance with this Court's
April 3, 2019 Order. Instead on June 5, 2019, Defendant filed
the instant Notice requesting permission to file a
seventy-page brief and a statement of material facts with an
“additional forty more pages.” ECF No. . In
the Notice, Defendant explains that her request is
“[d]ue to the complexity of the issues and the unusual
length of the records involved . . . .” Id.
She does not acknowledge that her Notice was filed nearly two
months after the deadline for her to file her motion as set
by the Court in it April 3, 2019 Order, and explicitly states
“I am not looking for an extension of time, as my
motion is ready.” Id.
request is ostensibly Defendant's third attempt to file a
motion for summary judgment over seven months. For each
attempt, despite direction from this Court, Defendant has
flouted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
Rules, and this Court's orders. While the Court
recognizes that Defendant proceeds pro se, this does
not mean that Defendant may ignore Court orders and attempt
to litigate this matter outside the bounds of the applicable
rules. Bizzell v. Tennis, 449 Fed.Appx. 112, 115 (3d
Cir. 2011) (quoting McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel.”)). Because the Notice was filed after
the Court-ordered deadline to file her motion, the Court
construes the Notice as a motion for an extension of time and
a motion to file an enlarged brief. These motions are
DENIED. Defendant offers not explanation as
to why she failed to comply with the Court's orders, and
the Court has given Defendant ample opportunities to file her
motion-after each of which Defendant ignored the Court's
on the record before the Court, it is unclear whether
Plaintiff intended to cross-move for summary judgment once
Defendant filed her motion. Accordingly, should Plaintiff
wish to file a motion for summary judgment, such motion shall
be filed on or before July 12, 2019. Any
opposition papers shall be filed on or before July
22, 2019. Reply papers shall be filed on or before
July 29, 2019. The Motion shall be
returnable on August 5, 2019. The Court
reminds the parties that ...